APHC010367962026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE 24th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5928/2026 Between: 1. SUMANTH MS ALIAS HEMANTH S, S/O SIDDLING, AGE 29 YEARS, R/O 423, JAKKURULAYOUT, BANGALORE NORTH, JAKKUR, BANGALORE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, Through the SHO, IV Town PS,Visakhapatnam District, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. GULIPALI SURAJ Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.3 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.37 of 2024 of IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam 2 Commissionerate, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Mr.Gulipali Suraj, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that he is a law‑abiding citizen with a fixed abode, aged about 29 years, employed as a software professional in Bangalore. Except for the confession of the co‑accused, there is no material available to incriminate the Petitioner. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting pre‑arrest bail. Hence, it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition. 3. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner. It is submitted that the Petitioner has been absconding and has not cooperated with the investigation, even though the case was registered in the year 2024. The investigation is not yet completed, and several material witnesses remain to be examined. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On perusal of the record, that the role of the Petitioner surfaced based on the confession of Accused No.1, who was transporting 4 kilograms of ganja at the instance of Accused No.2. It is alleged that Accused No. 2 instructed 3 Accused No.1 to transport ganja for the benefit of Accused No.3, for which Accused No.1 was lured with an amount of Rs.5,000/‑. Accused No.2 has also been arrested. So far, only four witnesses have been examined. The investigation is still in progress and the charge sheet has not yet been filed. At this stage, the only material available against the Petitioner is the confession of the co‑accused. However, custodial interrogation of the Petitioner may bring further material to light to substantiate the allegations. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab 1, at paragraph Nos.14 & 15, held as under: 14. Be that as it may, the order dated 21-9-2017 [Beant Singh v. State of Punjab, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 3801] passed by the High Court does not show that there is any reference to Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The quantity is reportedly commercial. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court could not have and should not have passed the order under Section 438 or 439 CrPC without reference to Section 37 of the NDPS Act and without entering a finding on the required level of satisfaction in case the Court was otherwise inclined to grant the bail. Such a satisfaction having not being entered, the order dated 21-9-2017 [Beant Singh v. State of Punjab, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 3801] is only to be set aside and we do so. 15. Consequently, the order dated 31-10-2017 passed by the Sessions Court is also set aside. All the three accused in both these appeals are directed to surrender before the trial court. However, we make it clear that they are free to apply for regular bail, in which case, the Sessions Court will consider the matter on the merits of the application. Before parting with the judgment, we also painfully note that even in the inquiry conducted pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, there was no reference to the regular bail granted to Beant Singh and Gurwinder Singh and that too, on production of an interim order passed by the High Court. Had the same been noticed, the State would have certainly taken steps much earlier. This is once again to remind the police and the prosecutor that they need to show due diligence and vigilance while dealing with the cases under the NDPS Act.” 7. The High Court of Rajasthan in Prabhulal & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan2, at paragraph No.6 held as under: “6. On the other hand, Mr. V.S. Gujar and Mr. Suresh Pareek have vehemently contended that in view of stringent provisions of Section 37 (1) of the N.D.P.S. Act, petitioners are not entitled to get bail even under Section 439, Cr. P.C. and there is 1(2018) 13 SCC 813 21995 Supreme(Raj) 935 4 hardly any ground to grant them anticipatory bail in such cases. Learned counsel further contended that petitioners are avoiding their arrest and there is sufficient material to establish their involvement in the crime. It was also contended that the bail application under Section 439, Cr. P.C. of co-accused Ram Kumar to whom the contraband articles were to be delivered, as well as the application of co-accused Bharat Singh were rejected by this Court on 15.12.94 and 15.7.94, respectively.In 1994 (3) W.L.C. ([Raj.) 622, while considering the scope of anticipatory bail in a case registered under the N.D.P.S. Act, it was observed by me, as under:- "The object and reason behind passing the amendments was to make stringent provisions of bail as it was thought that such powers should not be used to defeat the object of the Act and a technical plea should not be a ground for under -serving liberty under the Act. The non-obstante clause in Section 37 (1) of the /Act makes is clear that the accused of an offence under the Act is to be severally dealt with and that he should not be allowed to be released on bail unless the conditions contained in Section 37 are satisfied. Though the Act specifically does not prohibit the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr. P.C., but the legislative intent can be gathered from Section 37 of the Act which restricts the bail even after the arrest of the offender. The Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is a special enactment and was enacted with a view to making stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operation relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The under lying object of the Act and the stringent provisions of bail introduced by Act No. 2 of 1989 make it clear that anticipatory bail should not be granted in such cases unless the Court is satisfied that the investigating agency was abusing the provisions of the Act with malafide object to arrest any person. In such cases, the law should be allowed to have its own course." Section 25 of the Act provides punishment to the owner or occupier or having the control or use of any house, room, enclosure, space, place, animal or conveyance to be used for the commission by any other person of an offence punishable under any provision of this Act.” 8. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in Anarul SK v. State of West Bengal in Crl.A.No.12621 of 2024 dated 19.09.2024 at para No.4 observed that the grant of anticipatory bail in cases involving Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) is a very serious issue and directed the State to consider as to whether it proposes to file an application for the cancellation of bail granted to the other accused. 9. Therefore, request for grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.3 does not appear to be convincing or reasonable. Furthermore, importantly grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner, is neither a license for 5 commission of serious offence nor a shield or protection for having committed grave offences, as per the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab3 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)4. There are no merits in the petition. The Petitioner/Accused No.3 is disentitled for grant of pre-arrest bail. Hence, the Criminal Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Hence, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, learned counsel for the Petitioner urges this Court to pass an order directing the Petitioner to surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate. 11. This Court refers the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Om Prakash Chhawnika alias Om Prakash Chabnika alias Om Prakash Chawnika v. State of Jharkhand5, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held that the High Courts have no jurisdiction to direct the accused to surrender before the Court and seek regular bail. In view of the law laid down in Om Prakash Chhawnika supra, the request of learned counsel for the Petitioner cannot be entertained. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date:24.07.2026 PRA 3 (1980) 2 SCC 565 4 (2020) 5 SCC 1 5 2026 SCC OnLine SC 676 6 32 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5928 of 2026 Date: 24.07.2026 PRA