APHC010282722026 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: 4525/2026 Between: 1. KANUMURI SAI TRIBHUVAN VARMA,, S/O K. RAVI VARMA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O JVCS RESIDENCY, FLAT NO. G1, ROAD NO. 47, MAYURI NAGAR, MIYAPUR, NEAR CRICKET ACADEMY, MEDCHAL, MALKAJIGIRI, TELANGANA - 500049. 2. SOURAV KUMAR ROUT,, S/O SAMBHUNATH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 7-22/1 B, BAJIREDDY BUILDING, BOLLARAM, MEDAK, TELANGANA - 502325 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SPL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. 2. THE SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, REGIONAL UNIT, DOOR NO. 10-56, 5TH FLOOR, ABOVE CANARA BANK, ASHOK NAGAR, BUNDAR ROAD, VIJAYAWADA-520007. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): MANTAPAMPALLE RAMPRASAD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): SANTHI CHANDRA (Sr.STANDING COUNSEL FOR DRI AND DGGI) 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4525 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 on bail in F.No.DRI/HZU/VJRU/48/ENQ/-2(INT-2)/2026 on the file of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Regional Unit, Vijayawada, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 25, 27A, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that, acting on specific intelligence, the officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Vijayawada, conducted a search on 11.03.2026 at the premises of M/s Rays Organics, Kondapalli. During the search, they allegedly seized 237.82 kilograms of a substance suspected to be Alprazolam, a psychotropic substance under ‘the NDPS Act’, along with machinery, raw materials and other articles allegedly used for its illicit manufacture. It is alleged that Accused Nos.1 and 2 were in charge of the operations of the unit and admitted during the search proceedings that they were manufacturing Alprazolam without any valid licence. The prosecution further contends that the petitioners explained the manufacturing 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4525 of 2026 Dated 22.06.2026 process, disclosed the source of raw materials and the intended purchaser, and that their statements are corroborated by the seizure proceedings, panchanama and other material collected during investigation. The petitioners were arrested on 12.03.2026 and remanded to judicial custody. 3. Mr.M.Ramprasad, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the Petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and that they have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking them to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the Petitioners are the sole breadwinners of the family and their arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to their dependents. The Petitioners undertake to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioners. 4. It is further submitted that the Petitioners have a permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of their absconding or evading the process of law. The Petitioners have 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 a strong prima facie case is made out against 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4525 of 2026 Dated 22.06.2026 the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 for the offences punishable under ‘the NDPS Act’. It is submitted that during the search conducted at M/s Rays Organics, 237.82 Kgs of suspected Alprazolam, along with machinery and raw materials used for its manufacture, were seized and both the petitioners admitted their involvement in the manufacture of the psychotropic substance. The prosecution relies not only on the statements recorded under Section 67 of ‘the NDPS Act’ but also on the panchanama, seizure proceedings, machinery, raw materials, and other corroborative evidence collected during the investigation. It is further contended that the investigation is still in progress, the chemical analysis report is awaited, and the petitioners, if released on bail, are likely to influence witnesses and hamper the investigation. Therefore, having regard to the commercial quantity involved and the rigours of Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act’, the respondent seeks dismissal of the bail petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Standing Counsel. Perused the record. 7. As seen from the record, the petitioners were arrested on 11.03.2026 and are alleged to have been found in possession of 237.82 Kgs of Alprazolam, which is a commercial quantity. The material collected during the course of investigation prima facie discloses the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offence. The inventory 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4525 of 2026 Dated 22.06.2026 proceedings are yet to be completed and some more witnesses remain to be examined. Having regard to the stage of investigation, the commercial quantity of the contraband involved and the role attributed to the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Telangana in Crl.P.No.563 of 2023, wherein, at paragraphs 17 to 19, it was held as under: 17. Section 52A(3) of the NDPS Act envisages that when an application is made to that effect, the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application. Further, Section 52A(4) of the NDPS Act reads as under:- "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every court trying an offence under this Act, shall treat the inventory, the photographs of narcotic drugs psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances and any list of samples drawn under sub-section (2) and certified by the Magistrate, as primary evidence in respect of such offence." 18. Thus, certification made by the Magistrates regarding the inventory prepared, the photographs taken and the list of samples drawn would be treated as primary evidence in respect of such offence. Therefore, the Magistrates are under obligation to entertain the request of the Police officer concerned for certification without unreasonable or undue delay. 19. But, the instance case stands as a classic example where both the police officials and the learned Magistrate acted in a casual manner. This may be due to pressure of work or other allied factors. However, the mandate of law should not be ignored. Therefore, this Court holds that there is every requirement on part of the learned Magistrates to state in clear terms the date on which the application for the purpose of certification is forwarded by the Police officer concerned, the date on which the task of verifying and issuance of certificates is taken up and the date on which the representative samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. Care should be taken for making entry of all the applications forwarded by the Police concerned in this regard in the relevant register maintained by the court. Further, every proceeding including the certifications shall bear the date and seal of the court concerned. 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4525 of 2026 Dated 22.06.2026 9. It is evident from the record that the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada, has issued a certificate as contemplated under Section 52A(3) of ‘the NDPS Act’. 10. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court 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.” 11. 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.” 12. 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 1 (1999) 9 SCC 429 2 (1990) 1 SCC 95 3 (2020) 12 SCC 122 7 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4525 of 2026 Dated 22.06.2026 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. 13. 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. 14. 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.4525 of 2026 Dated 22.06.2026 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4525 of 2026 Date: 22.06.2026 RSI