Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement :29.06.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010299742026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 29th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4741/2026 Between: 1. BHAGYADHAR PRADHAN, S/O. GOVINDA CHANDRA PRADHAN,AGED 44 YEARS, R/O. SATHIGUDA VILLAGE,MALKANGIRI MANDAL AND DISTRICT,ODISHA STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh,At Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High CourtPleased to release the petitioner/accused no. 1 on bail, pending investigation, inquiry and trial in Cr. No. 34 of 2025 of Chinturu Police Station, Alluri Seetharamaraju District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. N PAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: 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.34 of 2025 of Chinturu Police Station, Alluri Sitaramaraju District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Mr. N. Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, except for the confession of the co-accused, there is no substantial material to establish that the petitioner has committed the alleged offence. The petitioner has been incarcerated. There are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. The petitioner is a law-abiding citizen and has a fixed place of abode. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting bail. Hence, it is urged that the petition be allowed. 3. Per contra, Mr.P.Somayaji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner. He submitted that although the Charge Sheet has been filed, the allegations against the Petitioner are grave in nature. If the Petitioner is released on bail, there is a strong likelihood of his influencing the prosecution witnesses and interfering with the course of the trial. Therefore, it is urged to dismiss the petition. 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 is arraigned as Accused No.1. It is alleged that he sold 30 kilograms of ganja to Accused Nos.3 and 4. The role of the petitioner came to light based on the confession of Accused Nos.3 and 4. The quantity of contraband seized is 30 kilograms. The petitioner was arrested on 24.02.2026 and has been in judicial custody for the past 126 days. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet has been filed in Crime No.107 of 2026. At this stage, there is prima facie material against the petitioner. 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 Samujh 1 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: 1 (1999) 9 SCC 429 “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.” 11. 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 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 2 (1990) 1 SCC 95 3 (2020) 12 SCC 122 offence. There are no merits in this case for 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:29.06.2026 JLSR Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 140 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4741 of 2026 Date: 29.06.2026 JLSR