APHC010704992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13545/2025 Between: 1. ASHOK KUMAR, S/O MANICKAM, AGED 39YRS,RAILWAY STATION VEEDHI, NORTH KADHU, KATTUVEPPILLAIPATTISALEM, TAMIL NAIDU.TANUKU. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, through The Senior Intelligence,Officer, Director of Revenue Intelligence, Vijayawada Westrep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravati ...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 Courtmay be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/A-3 on bail as he is taken into Judicial custody on 1-10-2025 in F.NO.DRI/HZU/VJRU/48/ENQ-13(INT-13)/2025 DRI, VJA, and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. NELAPATI RAJA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. SANTHI CHANDRA(Sr.STANDING COUNSEL FOR DRI AND DGGI) 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13545 of 2025 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under sections 483 of BNSS seeking to enlarge the petitioner/ A3 on regular bail in F.No.DRI/HZU/VJRU/48/ENQ- 13/2025 DRI, VJA, dated 20.09.2025. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is A3 who has been in judicial custody since 01.10.2025. The contraband seized in this matter is 1300 Kgs of Ganja. Learned counsel would submit that the case registered against the petitioner is only based on the alleged confession of A2 that the petitioner financed 12.75 lakhs of rupees to A2 to secure the Ganja. The allegation made against the petitioner is based on abetment and conspiracy. Learned counsel would further submit that no definition of abetment or conspiracy is available under NDPS Act and the Court has to look into the BNS to understand the alleged abetment of the petitioner and his involvement in the crime. Learned counsel would further submit that to establish the conspiracy, independent corroborative material should be necessary and the presence of the petitioner is not there at the time of alleged incident and nothing has been seized from the possession of the petitioner by the police. No prima facie case is there against the petitioner and no positive evidence is gathered that the petitioner has financed 12.75 lakhs to the other accused for committing the crime. It is further submitted that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and the petitioner is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. Learned counsel would finally submit that the amount which was transferred from the bank account of the petitioner’s wife cannot be tagged to him. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that petitioner herein is the kingpin and mastermind behind this crime. The complicity of the petitioner is well established during the course of investigation. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that the investigation is still in progress and statutory period is also not over and if he is released on bail, there are several possibilities to tamper the evidence and commit the similar offences. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed to release the petitioner on bail and in the light of bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petition may be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State by NCB Bangaluru Vs Pallulabid Ahmad Arimuttar and Batch1. 6. The case relied upon by the petitioner does not help the petitioner. The reason is apart from the alleged confessional statements of A2, the incriminating material collected by investigating officer during the course of investigation established a strong link to the petitioner with the crime. Be that 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 69 as it may. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh2 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. 7. Considering the submissions made, in view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred judgment, the petitioner does not deserve for grant of regular bail at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 10.02.2026. DVS/JAK 2 (2020) 12 SCC 122 233 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13545 of 2025 Date:10.02.2026 DVS/JAK