1 APHC010660212025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 12673 & 12785/2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12673/2025 Between: 1. CHALAGALA GANGA SAGAR ALIAS SALAGAIA SAGAR, S/O CHALAGALA NAGARAJU,AGED 22 YEARS ,D.NO. 1-14-23, KONDAVARIPETA NEW COLONY TUNI EASTGODAVARI. A-8 2. MORTHA DURGA PRASAD, S/O MORTHA THALUPULU AGED 23 YEARS,D,NO. 1-10-55, KONDAVARIPETA, TAILORS COLONY TUNI,EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. A-9 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. KOPPISETTI PARVATI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12785/2025 Between: 1. ISRAIL, S/O AN MOHAD, AGED 45 YEARS,JAMAIGORH VILLAGE POST JANMAL GARH 156, MEWAT DIST.HARAYNA-122508, A-2 2. TAHIR, S/O FALLI, AGED 24 YEARS, KURESHI MOHILA,UTAWAR 278 PO-UTTAWAR PALWAL DIST. HARAYANA .A-3 3. KASAM KHAN, S/O DAUD AGED 44 YEARS MAKAN-043,NEAR MASJID, JAMALGARH JAINALGORH-156 MEWAT, HARAYANA A-4 4. HABIB, S/O ASHIHAMAD AGED 40 YEARS, JAMALGHAR VILLAGE ,JAMALGHAR DIST. HARAYANA A-5 5. ANISH, S/O ASLUP AGED 27 YEARS UTTAWAR VILLAGE,UTTAWAR 278, PALWAI HARAYANA A-6 6. SAJID, S/O IKWAL AGED 23 YEARS, HOUSE 521,QURESHIYA MOHALLA, UTTAWAR, UTAWAR-278 PALWAL HYRAYANA121103. A-7 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. KOPPISETTI PARVATI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 12673 & 12785 OF 2025 ORDER:- The Criminal Petition Nos.12673 & 12785 of 2025 have been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.8 & 9 and petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 7 respectively on bail in Crime.No.211 of 2025 of Tuni Town Police Station, East Godavari District, registered against the Petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. These two Criminal Petition Nos.12673 and 12785 of 2025 are heard and disposed of by way of this common order, as the petitioners in these two petitions are accused in the same crime. 3. Heard Ms.Kosetti Parvathi Devi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, the Assistant Public Prosecutor. 4. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 7 in Crl.P.No.12785 of 2025 were arrested on the spot while they were in possession of 25 kgs of ganja and the Petitioners/Accused Nos.8 & 9 in Crl.P.No.12673 of 2025 were brought into this crime on the confession of co- 4 accused. The seized contraband is a commercial quantity. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail. This Court is also of the view that there is no material to presume that the petitioners have not committed the offence alleged, and there is a likelihood that, if enlarged on bail, they may commit a similar offence in future. The investigation is at a progressive stage and some more witnesses are yet to be examined. The accused Nos.2 to 7 were arrested on 21.11.2025 and the accused Nos.8 and 9 were arrested on 24.11.2025. Since then they were in judicial custody. 5. 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. 6. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh 1 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.” 7. 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 1 (1999) 9 SCC 429 2 (1990) 1 SCC 95 5 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.” 8. 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. 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. 9. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Samujh, Durand Didier and Rajesh, the request of the petitioners cannot be considered at this juncture inasmuch as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners have not indulged in the commission of the alleged 3 (2020) 12 SCC 122 6 offence. There are no merits in the Criminal Petitions for grant of bail to the petitioners. Hence, the Criminal Petitions are liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition Nos.12673 and 12785 of 2025 are dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. __________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 27.01.2026 S D P 7 189 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 12673 & 12785 of 2025 27.01.2026 S D P