APHC010679132025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12974/2025 Between: 1. PANGI GOVIND ALIAS GOVINDU ALIAS KONDALA RAO, S/O. LATE MONGLA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,R/O. YEDUKONDALA BANDA VILLAGE, BABUSALAPANCHAYAT, MUNCHINGIPUTTU MANDAL,ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.3 on bail pending disposal of Crime No.331/2024 of Pendurthi P.S., Visakhapatnam District and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12974/2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner/Accused No.3, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.331/2024 of Pendurthi P.S., Visakhapatnam District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) r/w Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Heard Sri Gollapalli Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.07.2024, the Sub- Inspector of Police, Pendurthi Police Station, while conducting vehicle checking, apprehended Accused Nos.1 and 2 while they were in possession of and transporting ganja. The police seized 20 kilograms of ganja from their possession under the cover of a mediator’s report. During the course of investigation, the present petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.3 based on the confession statement of Accused Nos.1 and 2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/Accused No.3 has been falsely implicated in the alleged crime and that he has no connection whatsoever with the same. It is further submitted that the petitioner 3 has been in judicial custody since 26.11.2025. No contraband was seized from the possession of the petitioner/Accused No.3. The petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family, and his continued incarceration would cause severe hardship to his dependents. He would further submit that the except the confession statement, there is no other material to connect the petitioner to the alleged crime. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court and is ready and willing to furnish adequate sureties to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court. He finally prays to allow the petition. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the contraband involved in the present case is a commercial quantity of 20 kilograms of Ganja and that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 26.11.2025. She would further submit that the statutory period has not yet been completed and that the investigation is still pending. She would further submit that during the course of investigation, they have collected CDRs, which establish the role of the petitioner as supplier. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition, in view of the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 6. Considering the submissions and a fair look on the material placed before this Court, it is a case where commercial quantity of Ganja is involved and the investigation is still pending. At this juncture, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. 4 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh1 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. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, 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 the petitioner is released on bail he would not commit similar offence in future. There are no merits in the Criminal Petition for grant of bail to the petitioner. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 1 (2020) 12 SCC 122 5 As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 24.02.2026. UPS 6 237 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12974/2025 Dt.24.02.2026 UPS