APHC010656802025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12626/2025 Between: DUPPALAPUDI DURGA RAO ALIAS SAI, S/O MAHESH ALIAS MAHESH BABU,AGED 27 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.44-14/4-5/11,HANUMAN NAGAR, GUNADALA,VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Nunna Police Station, N.T.R District,Rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.12626 of 2025 Dated 06.01.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.399 of 2025 of Nunna Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is the sole breadwinner of the family. He is a law-abiding citizen. He has got fixed abode. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been suffering from dislocation of shoulder. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner and it is urged to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the petitioner/Accused No.1 was arrested on the spot while he was in possession and transportation of commercial quantity of ganja. Investigation is at a nascent stage. Some more material witnesses are to 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.12626 of 2025 Dated 06.01.2026 be examined. Some more incriminating material is to be obtained, and it is urged to dismiss the petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. As seen from the record, the petitioner/Accused No.1 was found in possession of 13 grams of MDMA. The petitioner was arrested on 27.09.2025, and the contraband was seized from his possession. The seized contraband is undoubtedly a commercial quantity. So far, only eight witnesses have been examined. Some more material witnesses are to be examined. The source from which the petitioner allegedly obtained 13 grams of MDMA is to be ascertained. Even though there are no similar criminal adverse antecedents against the petitioner/Accused No.1, the request for enlarging him on bail is not convincing or reasonable, inasmuch as the material portion of the investigation is not completed. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. This Court is also not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the said offence or that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, his alleged role played in the case, and the petitioner has allegedly found in possession of 13 Grams of MDMA, which is a commercial quantity, this Court is not inclined to grant bail at this juncture. 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.12626 of 2025 Dated 06.01.2026 7. Further, statutory period of judicial remand for 180 days is not completed. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 8. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Paragraph No.7 held as under: “In murder cases the harm is limited to one or two individuals, whereas narcotics offences destroy numerous vulnerable lives and have a deadly impact on society; offenders involved in drug trafficking pose a continuous hazard and are likely to persist in their illicit activities if released, and therefore strict adherence to the legislative mandate is essential.” 9. In Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)2 the Hon’ble Apex Court at Paragraph No.24 held as under: “The organised underworld activities and clandestine trafficking of narcotic drugs have caused widespread addiction, especially among adolescents and students, turning the menace into a serious and alarming social problem. To combat this devastating threat with its deadly impact on society, Parliament recognised the need for strong measures. Consequently, it enacted Act 81 of 1985, introducing strict provisions with mandatory minimum imprisonment and fines.” 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh3 at Paragraph Nos.8, 19, 20 and 21 held as under: 8. To curb the spread of dangerous drugs, Parliament has mandated that an accused under the NDPS Act cannot be granted bail unless there are reasonable grounds to believe he is not guilty and will not commit offences while on bail. The High Court failed to justify ignoring these mandatory conditions when releasing the accused. Instead of considering the grave socio-economic and health consequences of illegal drug trafficking, the court ought to have enforced the law in the spirit intended by Parliament. 1 (1999) 9 SCC 429 2 (1990) 1 SCC 95 3 (2020) 12 SCC 122 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.12626 of 2025 Dated 06.01.2026 19. Section 37 imposes additional, overriding restrictions on the grant of bail, beyond those under Section 439 CrPC, through its non obstante clause. It prohibits bail unless two mandatory conditions are met: the prosecution is given an opportunity to oppose, and the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty. If either condition is not fulfilled, the bar against granting bail applies. 20.The term “reasonable grounds” requires more than mere prima facie satisfaction; it demands substantial, probable causes showing the accused is not guilty. Such belief must arise from facts and circumstances sufficient to justify that conclusion. In the present case, the High Court overlooked the strict object of Section 37, and its liberal approach to bail under the NDPS Act was unwarranted. 21.The learned Single Judge failed to record the mandatory finding required under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which is a sine qua non for granting bail in such cases. 11. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Samujh, Durand Didier and Rajesh the request of the petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture inasmuch as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence, and if he is enlarged on bail he would not commit similar offence in future. There are no merits in this case for grant of bail to the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 06.01.2026 RSI 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.12626 of 2025 Dated 06.01.2026 42 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12626 of 2025 Date: 06.01.2026 RSI