APHC010447652026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE 15th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7438/2026 Between: 1. ASHOK KUMAR, S/O MANICKAM,AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, BUSINESS,R/O D.NO.1-29, RAILWAY STATION VEEDHINORTH KADU, KATTUVEPPILLAIPATTI SALEM,TAMIL NADU. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. 2. THE SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE VIJAYAWADA. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. M/S.ASTONISH LAWS Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 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.3 on bail in F.No.DRI/HZU/VJRU/48/ENQ- 13(INT-13)/2025 DRI, Vijayawada for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 20, 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, on 28.09.2025 at 20:30 hours, DRI officials intercepted a lorry at Ramavarappadu Ring Road, Vijayawada, and allegedly seized 1,300.27 kgs of ganja from Accused Nos.1 and 2. Based on their confessional statements, the Petitioner was arrested on 30.09.2025 at Salem, Tamil Nadu, and arrayed as Accused No.3. The prosecution alleges that the Petitioner financed the procurement and directed Accused Nos.1 and 2 to transport the contraband. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for DRI and DGGI. Perused the record. 4. Sri Chandra Sekhar Ilapakurti, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of ‘the NDPS Act’ are inadmissible, and the call detail records filed lack interception proof or FSL certification, thus having no evidentiary value. The seized lorry 3 stands in the name of Accused No.4, with FASTag deductions from his account, showing no link to the Petitioner. The alleged antecedents against the Petitioner rest only on inadmissible statements, unsupported by any conviction or certified record. The Petitioner’s earlier bail petitions were dismissed, but now the charge sheet has been filed and remains unnumbered, reducing chances of tampering. The Petitioner is ready to furnish sureties and abide by conditions if granted bail. Hence, it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition. 5. Mrs. Santhi Chandra, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for DRI and DGGI, filed a detailed counter‑affidavit wherein it is mentioned that, based on specific intelligence, DRI intercepted lorry KA01AH3434 at Vijayawada and seized 1,300.27 kgs of Ganja concealed in hidden chambers, valued at Rs.2.6 crores. The seizure was conducted in the presence of independent witnesses, with detailed panchanama proceedings, sealing, and confiscation of the vehicle. Accused Nos.1 and 2 admitted their roles, stating that the Petitioner/Accused No.3 financed the procurement, directed the transport, and handed over the vehicle for smuggling. Their statements are corroborated by call data records showing over 30 calls between Accused Nos.2 and 3 during the smuggling period, and by bank transactions from the account of wife of the Accused No.3 to suppliers. The voluntary statement of Accused No.3 further 4 confirms his role as financier and organizer of the operation. The prosecution asserts that these admissions, CDRs, and financial records establish Accused No.3 as the main accused and conspirator. 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.3 is entitled for grant of bail?” 8. In Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh1, 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. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh2, 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 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. 12023 SCC OnLine SC 346 2(2020) 12 SCC 122 5 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.” 10. In Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal3, 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 were reasonable grounds to justify that he was not guilty of such an offence 3(2022) 18 SCC 374 6 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.” 11. In Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari4, 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 4(2007) 7 SCC 798 7 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.” 12. In Union of India v. Mohd. Nawaz Khan5, 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. 13. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Pramod Kumar Soni v. State of M.P.,6 at para No.13 it is held as under: “13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the case diary and charge-sheet, no overt act has been attributed to him in execution of the alleged crime. The prosecution relies heavily on CDRs. However, CDRs merely establish that calls were exchanged; same do not disclose the contents of conversation. No transcripts, voice recordings, or electronic messages have been placed on record. Mere telephonic contact, without anything more, cannot establish criminal conspiracy.” 14. On perusal of the record, the Petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.3 in this case. The Petitioner is alleged to have indulged in dealing with 1300.27 kilograms of Ganja, which is not only a commercial quantity but also a 5(2021) 10 SCC 100 6 2026 SCC OnLine MP 12790 8 colossal quantity. The present petition is the third bail application. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.P.No.13545 of 2025 vide order dated 10.02.2026 dismissed the first bail application filed by the Petitioner. This Court in Crl.P.No.5042 of 2026 vide order dated 17.07.2026 dismissed the second bail application filed by the Petitioner. The role of the Petitioner came to light based on the confessional statements of Accused Nos.1 and 2. The Petitioner was arrested on 01.10.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 349 days. After thorough investigation, the Charge Sheet was filed well within 180 days. The prosecution alleges that the Petitioner is the mastermind in the transportation of 1300.27 kilograms of ganja. 15. The gravity of the offence under ‘the NDPS Act’, the magnitude of the seized contraband, the role attributed against the Petitioner as the mastermind, and in view of the statutory rigour under Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act’, this Court is not satisfied to grant bail to the Petitioner. Further, the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of bail. 16. This Court cannot jump to a conclusion on the merits and demerits of the matter while dealing with a bail application. As seen from the averments on record, the accusations are well‑founded. There are no merits in the present petition. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 9 17. 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: 15.09.2026 PRA 10 57 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7438 of 2026 Date: 15.09.2026 PRA