APHC010283262026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4555/2026 Between: MOHAMMED HUSSAIN, S/O. SUBHANI,AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 12-59KRISHNA NAGAR, KANNURU, VIJAYAWADA,KRISHNA DISTRICT, 520007. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND UNION OF INDIA, Rep by the Special Public Prosecutor, Through Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Vijayawada Regional Unit, Vijayawada. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: GULIPALI SURAJ Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: SANTHI CHANDRA (Sr.STANDING COUNSEL FOR DRI AND DGGI) 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4555 of 2026 Dated 22.06.2026 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.3 on bail in F.No.DRI/HZU/VJRU/48/ENQ/-21(INT-15) on the file of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Vijayawada, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.3 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C), 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.11.2025, on receipt of credible information, the officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence conducted a search at the premises in question and a vehicle bearing Registration No. UP 91 AT 2451. During the search, they allegedly recovered and seized 248.82 Kgs of ganja packed in HDPE bags and polythene packets. The prosecution alleges that Accused Nos.1 to 5 were involved in the illicit possession, storage, transportation and trafficking of the seized contraband. The petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.3 and is alleged to have assisted Accused No.1 in managing the godown, loading and unloading the contraband, and 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4555 of 2026 Dated 22.06.2026 facilitating the transportation of ganja. The petitioner was arrested on 11.11.2025 and remanded to judicial custody. 3. Mr.G.Suraj, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and that he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking him to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the Petitioner is the sole breadwinner of the family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to his dependents. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioner. 4. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has a permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of his absconding or evading the process of law. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation thus far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings, and it is urged to allow the Petition. 5. Per contra, Ms.Santhi Chandra, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for DRI and DGGI, opposed the bail petition and filed a detailed counter, contending that there is a strong prima facie case against the petitioner/A.3 in connection with the seizure of 248.82 Kgs of ganja. It is submitted that the petitioner actively participated in the illicit trafficking operation by managing the godown and facilitating the storage and 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4555 of 2026 Dated 22.06.2026 transportation of the contraband. The prosecution relies upon the panchanama, seizure proceedings, FasTag records, UPI transactions, and other corroborative material linking the petitioner to the offence. It is further contended that the rigours of Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act’ are attracted and that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence. Therefore, the respondent seeks dismissal of the bail petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel. Perused the record. 7. As seen from the record, the petitioner/Accused No.3 is alleged to have acted as a helper to Accused No.1 in the storage and transportation of the contraband. The complaint was filed on 08.05.2026 within the prescribed period of 180 days. The petitioner was arrested on 11.11.2025 and has been in judicial custody for the past 223 days. In the present case, Accused Nos.1 to 5 were found in possession of 248.82 Kgs of ganja, which is a commercial quantity. The material collected during the investigation, including the statements of the accused, FasTag records and other corroborative evidence, prima facie indicates the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence. The investigation is still pending to ascertain the source of the contraband and the involvement of other persons. If the petitioner/Accused No.3 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4555 of 2026 Dated 22.06.2026 enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of the petitioner influencing the investigation and hampering its progress. Having regard to the bar contained under Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act’, the stage of the investigation, the commercial quantity of contraband involved and the role attributed to the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. 8. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 9. 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.” 10. 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 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4555 of 2026 Dated 22.06.2026 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh 3 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. 12. 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 has not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence. There are no merits in this case for 3 (2020) 12 SCC 122 7 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4555 of 2026 Dated 22.06.2026 grant of bail to the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. 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:22.06.2026 RSI 8 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4555 of 2026 Dated 22.06.2026 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4555 of 2026 Date22.06.2026 RSI