APHC010646812025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12432/2025 Between:

1. R AHUL, S/O BALESWAR, AGED 29 YEARS, LORRY DRIVER,R/O GESUPUR SHUMALI VILLAGE, MEERUT M DIST,STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. DASARI RAMAKOTESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1.

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12432/2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner/Accused No.7, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.87 of 2025 of Kotauratla P.S, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 r/w Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

2. None represented for the petitioner. The petitioner herein is the Accused No.7, who has been in judicial custody since 22.09.2025. Since this is a regular bail application, this Court is inclined to proceed with the matter as the right and liberty of the individual is involved.

3. Mrs. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the contraband involved in the present case is a commercial quantity of 100 kilograms of Ganja and that the Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 22.09.2025. She would further submit that the statutory period has not yet been completed and that the investigation is still pending. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition, in view of the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

4. Considering the submissions and a fair look on the material placed before this Court, it is a case where huge commercial quantity of Ganja is involved and the investigation is still pending. At this juncture, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

5. 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.

6. 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 reasonab