APHC010286942026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4615 OF 2026 Between: 1. SHAIK HASAN ALIAS MUNNA ALIAS ASHOK ALIAS KARTHIK REDDY, ,S/O. LATE AKBAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,R/O. KURRALABBIPALEMVILLAGE,ISAKAPALLI PANCHAYAT, ALLURU MANDAL,SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. K H V SIVA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 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 on bail in Crime No.380 of 2025 of Nellore Rural Police Station, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offences punishable under Section 20(B)(1) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’), 178, 180 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. Material averments stemming from the case of the prosecution are that on 26.11.2025 at about 22:00 hours, at Sai Sri City Layout, Dhanalakshmipuram Village, Nellore Rural Mandal, the Inspector of Police, Nellore Rural Police Station, acting upon credible information, conducted raid in the presence of mediators. During the raid, Accused Nos.1 to 4 were apprehended. On investigation, the accused had allegedly procured counterfeit currency notes with the intention of using the same as genuine and had also transported about 25 kilograms of Ganja from Odisha State by train, collected the same at Nellore Railway Station and stored it in a rented house at 8th Cross Street, Sai Sri City Layout, Dhanalakshmipuram Village, Nellore Rural Mandal. The accused had sold about 3 kilograms of Ganja to unknown persons. During the raid, the police seized 22.440 kilograms of Ganja, 7,500 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination each (value of Rs.37,50,000/-) and the Accused Nos.1 to 4 were arrested. 3 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. He is the sole breadwinner of the family. He was falsely implicated in this case. He is a law-abiding citizen. He has got fixed abode. He would abide by any condition which this Court deems fit to enlarge the petitioner on bail, and it is urged to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, Mr. K.Sandeep, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the offence alleged against the Petitioner is grave and serious in nature, involving the possession and transportation of narcotic drugs which have a pernicious effect on society, particularly on youth. It is argued that the seizure of 22.440 kilograms of ganja, which is a commercial quantity under ‘the NDPS Act.,’ and attracts stringent punishment. The prosecution emphasizes that the recovery was affected under due procedure with independent mediators, and the confession of the Accused corroborates the seizure. In such circumstances, granting bail would not only hamper the investigation but also embolden the accused to continue his unlawful activities, thereby posing a serious threat to public order and the larger societal interest and it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 6. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” 4 7. The allegation against Petitioner/Accused No.1 is that he is the seller of Ganja and he was found in possession of 22.440 kilograms of Ganja, which is a commercial quantity. The Petitioner was arrested on 26.11.2025 and has been in judicial custody for the past 203 days. So far, only one witness has been examined. The investigation is at a nascent stage and material witnesses are yet to be examined. Substantial portion of the investigation is pending. It is pertinent to note that application for extension of remand was filed and the remand of the Petitioner was extended up to 01.06.2026. The further period of remand was extended as the Petitioner is in judicial custody. 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.” 1(1999) 9 SCC 429 2(1990) 1 SCC 95 5 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 Cr.P.C., 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 over looked 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. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the pendency of the investigation, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 17.06.2026 BSK 3(2020) 12 SCC 122 6 159 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4615 OF 2026 Date: 17.06.2026 BSK