APHC010672152025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 12856/2025 Between: ERUKALA YADAIAH GOUD ALIAS GIRI, S/O CHANDRAIAH.AGED 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION TEACHING R/O.D.NO.1-310, CHAMALONIBAVI, VATTIKODA, GURRAMPODE, NALGONDA DISTRICT, TELANGANA STATE - 508 225. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, HYDERABAD THE SUB ZONE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, NCB. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. DUGGIRALA SUBASH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. SURESH KUMAR ROUTHU (SPL PP FOR NCB) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short „Cr.P.C.‟) has been filed by the Petitioner / A.3 seeking to release him on bail in connection with NDPS SC No.7 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District and Special Judge-Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam, for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read 2 with 22(C), 27-A, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short „NDPS Act‟). 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 05.06.2023, the respondent authorities on reliable information along with mediators visited the scene of offence at CPR Laboratories Private Limited in Atchuthapuram, APSEZ, Lalamkoduru village, Rambilli Mandal, and found manufacturing of Alprazolam. A.1 to A.3 were found at the production block where they were packing the materials in the drums. The suspected material was seized along with equipment in the presence of the laboratory owner. A.1 to A.3 confessed about their involvement in the manufacturing, possession and attempted transportation of the substance. 3. Heard Sri Anand Grover, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Duggirala Subash, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned Special Public Prosecutor for NCB appearing for respondent/State. Perused the written synopsis and the material on record. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.3 in the present case. It is submitted that the Petitioner was arrested on 07.06.2023 and has been in judicial custody ever since, thereby languishing in jail for a period exceeding two years and eight months. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Rabi Prakash vs. The State of Odisha1. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the Petitioner is a Scientist by profession and has no criminal antecedents. It is contended that 1 SLP (Crl.) No.4169 of 2023, dated 13.07.2023 3 the substance allegedly seized does not fall within the category of psychotropic substances specified in Schedule I of the Rules framed under the NDPS Act, and therefore, the rigours of the said Act would not be attracted to the facts of the present case. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on Sarija Banu @ Janarthani @ Janani & another vs. State2, Kishan Chand vs. State of Haryana3, Nijamunisha vs. The State of Gujarat4, Darshan Singh vs. State of Haryana5 and State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh6. It is further submitted that no specific overt act has been attributed to the Petitioner. The complaint, according to the learned Senior Counsel, is conspicuously silent regarding the role played by the Petitioner in the alleged offence and no material is placed on record to connect the Petitioner with the commission of the offence. Learned Senior Counsel would also contend that there has been a violation of the mandate under Article 22 of the Constitution of India and Section 57 of Cr.P.C., inasmuch as the Petitioner, though arrested on 07.06.2023, was not produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours, but only after more than 48 hours of arrest. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on Directorate of Enforcement vs. Deepak 2 (2004) 12 SCC 266 3 (2013) 2 SCC 502 4 2024 INSC 290 5 (2016) 14 SCC 358 6 (1994) 3 SCC 299 4 Mahajan7, Directorate of enforcement vs. Subhash Sharma8 and Niranjan Singh vs. Prabhakar Rajaram9. It is further submitted that there is no material to establish any financial nexus between the Petitioner and the other Accused persons, as there is no money trail, bank transactions, or prior financial dealings attributed to him. Neither the Managing Director of CPR Laboratory nor Arre Srinivas Reddy of Sanus Viridis Laboratories have named or identified the Petitioner in their statements. In this regard, reliance is placed on Keyur Harishbai Patel vs. State of Gujarat and another10, and Senior Intelligence Officer vs. Sai Ram Sivaratri11. Learned Senior Counsel would also submit that there is no CCTV footage or videographic evidence of the search and seizure proceedings to demonstrate the presence of the Petitioner at the scene. It is further contended that even the Managing Director was not called upon to witness the search proceedings. In this context, reliance is placed on, which emphasized the importance of fair and transparent investigation. It is further argued that the mobile numbers allegedly relied upon by the prosecution to establish contact between the Petitioner and Accused No.2 do not belong to the Petitioner, and therefore, the call detail records and tower location data cannot be attributed to him. 7 (1994) 3 SCC 440 8 2025 INSC 141 9 (1980) 2 SCC 440 10 Criminal Appeal No.5020 of 2025, dated 24.11.2025 11 SLP (Crl).No.1171 of 2024, dated 30.01.2024 5 Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Petitioner has neither ownership nor control over the factory in question or the alleged production process of the contraband substance. It is also pointed out that the Petitioner‟s signature does not appear on any agreements or documents seized during the course of investigation. It is further contended that the Managing Director of CPR Laboratories has not been arrayed as an Accused and no action has been taken against him, and the Petitioner has been unnecessarily implicated in the present case. It is finally submitted that the charges have not yet been framed and there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future. The Petitioner, being a law-abiding citizen, undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. 5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the NCB, on instructions, has opposed the present petition. It is submitted that there exists a prima facie case against the Petitioner. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would further contend that the contraband seized in the present case weighs 119.5 kilograms, which is far in excess of the prescribed commercial quantity, thereby attracting the rigours of the relevant provisions of law. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No. 7885 of 2025 seeking bail, and the same came to be dismissed by order dated 17.09.2025 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. It is further submitted that there is no change 6 in circumstances since the dismissal of the earlier bail petition. In that view, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that the present petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether any change of circumstances exist from the date of dismissal of earlier bail application? POINT 7. Considering the submissions made and upon a careful perusal of the material available on record, this Court notes that, as rightly contended by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the Petitioner was apprehended by the investigating agency at the spot, and pursuant to his confession, the authorities were able to gather material information relating to the subject matter of the case. 8. This Court finds that a prima facie case is made out against the Petitioner, attracting the ingredients of the offences alleged. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner had earlier filed a bail application, which came to be dismissed by this Court. Since then, no change in circumstances has been demonstrated to warrant reconsideration of the Petitioner‟s request for bail. 9. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner had entered into a contract with the concerned company and, in that capacity, assisted in production as a Scientist. However, no such contract has been placed before this Court. The explanation offered that the contract has been misplaced cannot be accepted. Further, the mere fact that 7 no action has been taken against the Managing Director and that he has been cited as a witness does not constitute a valid ground for grant of bail to the Petitioner herein. 10. This Court is of the considered view that the grounds now urged by the Petitioner are neither new nor distinct and are substantially the same as those raised in the earlier bail application, which was duly considered and rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.09.2025 passed in Crl.P. No. 7885 of 2025. The said order was passed after a detailed examination of the material, including the recovery of 119.5 kilograms of Alprazolam, which was rightly held to be more than the “commercial quantity” under the NDPS Act. This Court concurs with the finding that the Petitioner‟s inculpatory statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, along with the seizure of manufacturing equipment and corroborative telephonic evidence, prima facie establishes his involvement in the alleged offences, thereby attracting the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The earlier view that alleged procedural irregularities and delay in production before the Magistrate do not dilute the statutory rigour under the NDPS Act is also accepted. Likewise, prolonged detention alone cannot justify bail in the absence of satisfaction of the twin conditions under Section 37 of NDPS Act. In the absence of any new or changed circumstances, this Court affirms the findings of the Coordinate Bench and holds that the statutory bar under Section 37 of NDPS Act continues to operate against grant of bail to the Petitioner. 8 11. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that the Nodal Agency, namely the NCB, has clearly established the seizure of the entire illegally manufactured Alprazolam, as well as the machinery used for its manufacture, from the Accused. It is further contended that the role of the present petitioner stands on a different footing from that of the other Accused. The voluntary statement of Accused No.2 indicates that he had manufactured 44 kilograms of Alprazolam with the assistance of the Petitioner in November 2020 and again in May 2023. Reliance has also been placed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in NCB v. Mohit Aggarwal12, wherein it has been held that the length of custody, filing of the charge sheet, or commencement of trial cannot, by themselves, be treated as persuasive grounds for granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 12. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon a decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.986 of 2026. However, the facts of the said case are clearly distinguishable. In that case, the Accused was merely an additional driver engaged for transportation of cargo. In contrast, in the present case, the Petitioner is a Scientist alleged to have been directly involved in the manufacture of the contraband, which has been seized. It is also noted that the charge sheet has been filed and the trial Court has taken cognizance of the offence, numbering the case as SC NDPS No.7 of 2024. 12. 2022 SCC 891 9 13. Having regard to the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the gravity of the offence, the quantity of contraband involved, and the potential consequences on public health and safety, this Court finds no compelling or justifiable grounds to grant bail to the Petitioner, at this stage. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District and Special Judge-Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam, is directed to proceed with the matter by giving priority, since the Petitioner is in jail since June, 2023. If necessary split up the case against the Accused, who are not available and dispose of the present case as expeditiously as possible. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 12.03.2026 Mjl/* Dinesh 10 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 12856 of 2025 12.03.2026 Mjl/*