1 APHC010166762026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2490/2026 Between: 1. MEDIBOYINA TULASIDAS, S/O HEMA SUNDARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O.PLOT NO. 2, SRINU APARTMENTS, SRIRAMNAGAR, NEAR HIGH SCHOOL GROUND, KOTHAVALASA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, AP HIGH COURT, AMARAVATHI, REP., FOR THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PUSAPATIREGA P.S., VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...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 Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.3 on regular bail in Crime No. 13/2026 of Pusapatirega Police Station, Vizianagaram District, for offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, subject to such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and b) Pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. KUNUKU RAJA SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2490/2026 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner/Accused No.3, seeking regular bail, in Crime No. 13 of 2026 of Pusapatirega Police Station, Vizianagaram District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 01.02.2026 at about 16:30 hours, near Bala Appalaraju Coconut Tope, Govindapuram village, on Chintapalli-Mylan Road, Pusapatirega Mandal, the accused A1 Akram, A2 Rahul Kumar, and A3 Mediboyina Tulasidas were apprehended by the Station Inspector of Police, Pusapatirega Police Station, while in possession of 81.900 Kgs of Ganja intended for transportation in a lorry and two cars. The police seized the contraband, along with the lorry, two cars, and five cell phones, under the cover of mediators’ report. 3. Heard Sri Kunuku Raja Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the 3 prosecution. He was falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 02.02.2026. The investigation might have been completed by this time. The alleged recovery of contraband was made from the lorry which belongs to third parties. No contraband was seized from the possession of the petitioner. There are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. The petitioner is a qualified BDS doctor. The petitioner’s mother is suffering from a severe kidney disease and requires constant care and support. The petitioner is the only persons to take care of her. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court and finally prays to grant bail to the petitioner. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the contraband involved in the present case is a commercial quantity of 81.900 kilograms of Ganja and that the petitioner has have been in judicial custody since 02.02.2026. The petitioner was arrested while he was in possession of the contraband. She would further submit that the statutory period has not yet been completed and the investigation is still pending. The petitioner along with other accused were doing ganja business and in case he is released on bail, there is every likelihood of involving in similar offence and jumping bail. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. Considering the submissions and a fair look on the material placed before this Court, it is a case involving 81.900 Kgs of Ganja, which is a 4 commercial quantity. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that statutory period is not yet been completed and the investigation is still pending. At this juncture, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioners on bail. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh1 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. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, 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 and if the petitioner is released on bail he would not commit similar offence in future. There are no merits in the 1 (2020) 12 SCC 122 5 Criminal Petition for grant of bail to the petitioner. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 09.04.2026. UPS 6 73 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2490/2026 Dt.09.04.2026 UPS