APHC010280222026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4445/2026 Between: 1. KRISHNA KHILA, S/O SEMBUAGE 20 YEARS, R/O CHINTALADOOLI VILLAGERALEGADA PANCHAYAT, CHITRAKONDA BLOCK, MALKANAGIRI DISTRICTODISHNA STATE 764052. 2. BUDRA GOLARI, S/O BISHUNATHAGE 21 YEARS, R/O BANAJHULI VILLAGE, RALEGADDA PANCHAYAT,CHITRA KONDA BLOCK, MALAKANAGIRI DISTRICT, ODISH STATE 764052. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, hrough Station House officer,Annavaram Police Station, VisakhapatnamRep. by Pubiic Prosecutor,High Court at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): RAMINENI SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4445 of 2026 Dated 16.06.2026 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3 on bail in Crime No.06 of 2026 of Annavaram Police Station, ASR District, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3 herein for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Mr. Ramineni Sudheer, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the Petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. They have not committed any offence. They are law-abiding citizens. They have got fixed abode. The Petitioners undertake to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioners. Hence, it is urged to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is not completed. Some more material witnesses are to be examined. The petitioners have indulged in possession and transportation of commercial quantity of Ganja. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the petition. 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4445 of 2026 Dated 16.06.2026 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. As seen from the record, the petitioners were arrested on the spot while they were in possession and transportation of 23.00 Kgs of ganja. The seized contraband is a commercial quantity. The petitioners were arrested on 12.02.2026 and have been in judicial custody for the past 124 days. Some more material witnesses are yet to be examined. There are no similar criminal antecedents reported against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3. The investigation with regard to the alleged role played by the petitioners is still at a crucial stage. Therefore, the request for enlarging the petitioners on bail is not found convincing or reasonable at this juncture. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners. This Court is also not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners are not guilty of the said offence or that they are not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, the alleged role played by them in the case, and the fact that the petitioners were allegedly found in possession of 23.00 Kgs of ganja, which is a commercial quantity, this Court is not inclined to grant bail at this juncture. 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4445 of 2026 Dated 16.06.2026 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.4445 of 2026 Dated 16.06.2026 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 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 offence. There are no merits in this case for grant of bail to the petitioners. 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:16.06.2026 RSI 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4445 of 2026 Dated 16.06.2026 34 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4445 of 2026 Date: 16.06.2026 RSI