APHC010362962026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE 12th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5834/2026 Between: 1. SERI AMARENDER REDDY, S/O.VENKATA REDDYAGED 54 YEARS, R/O.FLAT NO.403GIRIJA MARVEL, BLOCK-CFRIENDS COLONY, VTC CHANDANAGARSERILINGAMPALLY, RANGA REDDY DISTRICTTELANGANA STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE REGIONAL OFFICE, , VisakhapatnamRep.by Special Public ProsecutorHigh Court of A.P., Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. VARSHITHA KALIGINEEDI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. SANTHI CHANDRA(Sr.STANDING COUNSEL FOR DRI AND DGGI) The Court made the following: 2 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.8 on bail in SC.NDPS.No.88 of 2026 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, acting on specific intelligence, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Visakhapatnam Regional Unit, conducted a search on 16/17.08.2025 at the premises of M/s Averx Drugs Private Limited, Atchuthapuram, Anakapalli District. During the search, in the presence of independent panch witnesses, about 119.40 kgs of suspected Alprazolam, 87.80 kgs of intermediate substance, and manufacturing equipment were seized under a Panchanama. The total seized material was 207.20 kgs, later confirmed through chemical analysis to be Nordazepam, a psychotropic substance under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). The Panchanama was recorded as F.No.DRI/HZU/VRU/48/ENO-2(INT-2)/2025. The Petitioner, arrayed as Accused No.8, along with seven other accused persons were found present in the drier room of the factory during the search. The 3 Petitionerconfessed about his role and was remanded to judicial custody on 18.08.2025. 3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and thelearned Senior Standing Counsel for DRI and DGGI. Perused the record. 4. Sri K.Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Ms.K.Varshitha, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner/Accused No.8 has been falsely implicated in the present case; that he has nothing to do with Accused Nos.1 to 7 or with the alleged manufacture of Alprazolam at M/s Averx Drugs Pvt. Ltd.; that the allegation of investing Rs.2,00,000/‑ is baseless and rests only on the statement of Accused No.5; that the Petitioner was arrested, confessed about his role, and was remanded to judicial custody on 18.08.2025, but such statement cannot be treated as conclusive evidence of guilt; that the investigation has been completed and Charge Sheet filed and therefore continued detention serves no purpose; that the Petitioner has been in custody for a considerable period and his family is suffering hardship due to his absence; that he is a respectable person with a fixed place of residence and will cooperate with the investigation and trial; and that he is ready to abide by any conditions which this Court may deem fit to impose for enlarging him on bail.Hence, it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition. 4 5. 4 5. On the other hand, Mrs.Santhi Chandra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for DRI and DGGI, filed a detailed counter‑affidavit wherein it is mentioned that the Petitioner/Accused No.8 has actively involved in the illicit manufacture and sale of a psychotropic substance; that his voluntary statement records investment of Rs.2,00,000/‑ in the illegal activity on the assurance of double returns, which was confirmed by Accused No.5; that his physical presence inside the factory premises during the search was contemporaneously recorded in the Panchanama and corroborated by video evidence; that huge commercial quantity of Alprazolam and intermediate substance was seized along with machinery and raw materials; that CDR/tower‑location analysis establishes his association with other accused and presence at the premises;and that the role attributed against him is specific and supported by independent material.It is further contended that the seizure being far above commercial quantity attracts the statutory bar under Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act’. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the both the learned Counsel. I have perused the record. 7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner/Accused No.8is entitled for grant of bail?” 5 8. In State v. B. Ramu1,the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in a case of recovery of a huge quantity of narcotic substance, the Courts should be slow in granting even regular bail or anticipatory bail more so when accused is alleged to have criminal antecedents. In this regard, paragraph Nos.9 & 11, relevant paragraphs, are extracted hereunder: “9. A plain reading of statutory provision makes it abundantly clear that in the event, the Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for bail either regular or anticipatory, as the case may be, the Court would have to record a satisfaction that there are grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence alleged and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 11. In case of recovery of such a huge quantity of narcotic substance, the Courts should be slow in granting even regular bail to the accused what to talk of anticipatory bail more so when the accused is alleged to be having criminal antecedents." 9. In Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh2,the Hon’ble Apex Court held that no person accused of offence involving trade in a commercial quantity of narcotics is entitled to be released on bail unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh3,at paragraph Nos.17, 19 and 20 held: “17. The jurisdiction of the court to grant bail is circumscribed by the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It can be granted in case there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of 12024 SCC OnLine SC 4073 22023 SCC OnLine SC 346 3(2020) 12 SCC 122 6 such offence, and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is the mandate of the legislature which is required to be followed. 19. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained under Section 439 Cr.P.C, but is also subject to the limitation placed by Section 37 which commences with non obstante clause. The operative part of the said section is in the negative form prescribing the enlargement of bail to any person accused of commission of an offence under the Act, unless twin conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application; and the second, is that the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting bail operates. 20. The expression "reasonable grounds" means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 that in addition to the limitations provided under the Cr.P.C, or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for.” 11. In Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal4,the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the length of the period of judicial custody and the fact that the charge sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act.’ In that regard, the relevant paragraph Nos.18 and 19 are extracted hereunder: “18. Even dehors the confessional statement of the respondent and the other co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which were subsequently retracted by them, the other circumstantial evidence brought on record by the appellant-NCB ought to have dissuaded the High Court from exercising its discretion in favour of the respondent and concluding that there 4(2022) 18 SCC 374 7 were reasonable grounds to justify that he was not guilty of such an offence under the NDPS Act. We are not persuaded by the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent and the observation made in the impugned order that since nothing was found from the possession of the respondent, he is not guilty of the offence for which he has been charged. Such an assumption would be premature at this stage. 19. In our opinion the narrow parameters of bail available under Section 37 of the Act, have not been satisfied in the facts of the instant case. At this stage, it is not safe to conclude that the respondent has successfully demonstrated that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offence alleged against him, for him to have been admitted to bail. The length of the period of his custody or the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.” 12. In Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari5,the Hon’ble Apex Court held about recovery of 400 kgs. of poppy straw from possession of accused respondent that two conditions to be satisfied under Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act.,’ for granting bail: First, the satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused not guilty, and second that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. If either of conditions are not satisfied, the accused cannot be granted bail. In that regard, the relevant paragraph Nos.6, 7 and 11 are extracted here under: “6. As the provision itself provides no person shall be granted bail unless the two conditions are satisfied. They are; the satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Both the conditions have to be satisfied. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the bar operates and the accused cannot be released on bail. 7. The expression used in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) is "reasonable grounds". The expression means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the 5(2007) 7 SCC 798 8 offence charged and this reasonable belief contemplated in turn points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify recording of satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged. 11. The Court while considering the application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the Court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the Court has not to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty.” 13. In Union of India v. Mohd. Nawaz Khan6, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that given the seriousness of offences punishable under ‘the NDPS Act.,’ and to curb the menace of drug-trafficking in the country, stringent parameters for grant of bail under ‘the NDPS Act.,’ have been prescribed. 14. Upon a meticulous appraisal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the accusations levelled against the Petitioner are of an exceedingly grave and serious nature, involving the recovery of a commercial quantity of psychotropic substance, namely 207.20 kilograms of Nordazepam, from the premises of M/s Averx Drugs Private Limited. The Petitioner was apprehended within the drier room of the said factory at the time of the raid, and the prosecution has further attributed to him a financial stake in the illicit enterprise to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/-. Having regard to the rigours embodied in Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act.,’ the power to enlarge an accused on bail in cases involving commercial quantity stands 6(2021) 10 SCC 100 9 substantially circumscribed, unless the Court is satisfied, upon reasonable grounds, that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and is unlikely to indulge in any criminal activity while on bail. At this stage, the material collected during investigation, including the Panchanama and the Chemical Analysis Report, prima facie furnishes a credible nexus between the Petitioner and the commission of the offence. The plea of innocence, coupled with the contention of mere presence at the scene, does not inspire confidence at this juncture, as the attendant circumstances, viewed cumulatively, unmistakably indicate his active complicity and participation in the alleged criminal conspiracy. Consequently, this Court finds no justifiable ground to record the requisite satisfaction contemplated under Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act.,’so as to warrant the grant of bail. 15. After thorough investigation, the police filed the Charge Sheet which has been numbered as SC.NDPS.No.88 of 2026 and pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge‑cum‑I Additional District Judge‑cum‑Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam. The Petitioner was arraigned as Accused No.8 in this case. It is important to note that this Court, in Crl.P.No.4772 of 2026 vide order dated 10.07.2026, dismissed the bail application filed by Accused No.6, Raghunath Goud Goundla, and the allegations against the present Petitioner are akin to those levelled against Accused No.6. The Petitioner was found at the spot and 10 the CDRs establish communication between him and the main accused. He was arrested on 18.08.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 359 days. The contraband seized in this case amounts to 207.20 kgs of Alprazolam, whereas even 100 grams constitutes commercial quantity under ‘the NDPS Act’. The prosecution alleges that Accused Nos.1 and 2 manufactured Alprazolam in association with Accused No.3, while Accused No.5, a relative of the Petitioner/Accused No.8, invested certain amounts for the purpose of manufacture. With regard to the role of the Petitioner, it is alleged that, on the request of Accused No.5, he invested Rs.2,00,000/‑ in the business, thereby directly participating in the illicit activity. 16. On perusal of the record and the statement of the Petitioner/Accused No.8, it is evident that he himself admitted his background and involvement. He stated that he had started an automobile spare parts business in 1993, later purchased a lorry in 1997 and continued in the transport field until March 2025, but due to financial losses discontinued the same. He further admitted that he had met Accused No.5, a distant relative, in 2002 during transport business, who persuaded him to invest in the present proposal with a promise of double returns. On that assurance, the Petitioner invested Rs.2,00,000/‑ with a promise of Rs.4,00,000/‑ return in a month. 17. The Petitioner also stated that, as per the directions of Accused No.5, he accompanied Accused No.5 and Accused No.2 to Atchutapuram in his 11 Nissan Magnite car (Reg.No.TS08HJ5279), checked in at SKR Residency on 08.08.2025 at about 20:00 hrs, and thereafter went to M/s Averx Drugs Pvt. Ltd. The Petitioner admitted that he came to know of Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 only through Accused No.5, who informed him that they were engaged in manufacturing Alprazolam, with Accused No.1 procuring raw materials and arranging buyers while Accused No.2 prepared the substance. The Petitioner further acknowledged that manufacture of Alprazolam without a valid licence is illegal, but nevertheless participated for monetary gain. 18. Furthermore, the legal position governing the grant of bail in offences involving commercial quantity under ‘the NDPS Act.,’ is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, inRajeshsupraand Mohit Aggarwalsupra, has unequivocally expounded that considerations such as filing of the charge sheet, length of incarceration, or absence of recovery from the personal possession of the accused do not, by themselves, dilute the rigours of Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act.’ The twin statutory conditions engrafted therein are mandatory in character and must be scrupulously satisfied before the extraordinary discretion of bail can be exercised. In the case at hand, the material collected during investigation discloses substantial and credible grounds giving rise to a strong prima facie belief regarding the complicity of the Petitioner/Accused No.8 in the alleged offence. The contention that the Petitioner was merely a peripheral or incidental participant stands 12 considerably weakened in light of the specific allegation attributing to him a financial investment of Rs.2,00,000/- in the illicit operation, coupled with his presence within the manufacturing precincts of M/s Averx Drugs Pvt. Ltd. at the time of seizure of an enormous commercial quantity of Alprazolam. Such incriminating circumstances, viewed in their cumulative effect, cannot be characterised as innocuous or fortuitous, but rather prima facie evince conscious involvement and active participation in the criminal conspiracy allegedly orchestrated for the unlawful manufacture and possession of psychotropic substances. 19. Equally, though this Court is not oblivious to the personal hardships canvassed on behalf of the Petitioner, including his asserted status as the sole breadwinner of the family, such equitable considerations, however compelling from a humanitarian standpoint, cannot be permitted to eclipse the legislative mandate embodied in Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act.’ The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Singhsupraand Mohd. Nawaz Khansupra, has consistently underscored that offences involving commercial quantities of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances constitute a distinct class of crimes having far- reaching and deleterious consequences on public health, social order, and the collective welfare of society, thereby warranting a restrictive approach in matters of bail. In the present case, the Petitioner has failed to discharge the onerous burden cast upon him to demonstrate the existence of reasonable 13 grounds for believing that he is not guilty of the alleged offence, nor has he succeeded in satisfying this Court that, if enlarged on bail, he would abstain from engaging in similar unlawful activities. Consequently, this Court finds itself unable to record the requisite satisfaction contemplated under Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act.’ 20. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.8on bail at this juncture. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 21. 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: 12.08.2026 PRA 14 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5834 of 2026 Date: 12.08.2026 PRA