APHC010286432026 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: 4605/2026 Between: MADHAVARAPU SURESH BABU, S/O. SRINIVASU,AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,R/O D.NO.3-153, NERELAMMA COLONY,INDRAPALEM, KAKINADA RURAL,EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHAR PRADESH. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SHO Duvvada Police Station, Visakhapatnam City Commissionerate, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: BHOOMA MAHARSHI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4605 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 Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.71 of 2026 of Duvvada Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Mr. Bhooma Maharshi Reddy, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. He has not committed any offence. He is law-abiding citizen. He has got fixed abode. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioner. 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 petitioner has 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.4605 of 2026 Dated 16.06.2026 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. As seen from the record, the petitioner/Accused No.1 was arrested on the spot while he was allegedly in possession and transportation of 2.8 Kgs of Hashish Oil. The seized contraband is a commercial quantity. The petitioner was arrested on 02.03.2026 and he has been in judicial custody for the past 106 days. It is reported that there are three similar adverse antecedents against the petitioner vide Crime No.02 of 2024 of Angara Police Station, Crime No.81 of 2022 of Koyyuru Police Station, and Crime No.14 of 2025 of Koyyuru Police Station. The investigation is at a nascent stage. So far, only seven witnesses have been examined. Some more material witnesses are yet to be examined. Therefore, the request for enlarging the petitioner on bail at this juncture is not found convincing or reasonable. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the alleged role played by him in the case, and the fact that the petitioner was allegedly found in possession of 2.8 Kgs of Hashish Oil, which is a commercial quantity, this Court is not inclined to grant bail at this juncture. 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. 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4605 of 2026 Dated 16.06.2026 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. 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 1 (1999) 9 SCC 429 2 (1990) 1 SCC 95 3 (2020) 12 SCC 122 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4605 of 2026 Dated 16.06.2026 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 petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture inasmuch as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner have not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence. There are no merits in this case for grant of bail to the petitioner. 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.4605 of 2026 Dated 16.06.2026 140 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4605 of 2026 Date: 16.06.2026 RSI