The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The instant petition under Section 483(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the State / Directorate of Revenue Intelligence seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the Respondents / Accused Nos.1 to 3 under Order dated 16.04.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.379 of 2025 in F.No.DRI/HZU/VRU/48/ENQ-04(Int-04) 2024, DRI, Visakhapatnam by the learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of the cases under the NDPS Act-cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram.

2. The case of the prosecution, in epitome, is that, on 05.10.2024 at about 08:00 hours, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Visakhapatnam Regional Unit, while conducting surveillance at Krishnavaram Toll Plaza, Jaggampeta on NH-16 (Chennai–Kolkata Highway), intercepted a Tata Goods Carrier bearing No. OD2CS2068 and a Maruti Swift Dzire car bearing No. OD25B0009 acting as a pilot vehicle escorting the goods carrier. On inspection, the officers found 24 white HDPE sacks concealed beneath empty fruit crates in the goods carrier, containing 254 packets of ganja (160 packets of 2 kg each and 94 packets of 5 kg each) weighing 808.18 kilograms in total. A-1 to A-3 were apprehended, while two other persons fled from the spot. The contraband, the two vehicles involved, and four mobile phones were seized and the Accused were arrested for offences under the NDPS Act.

3. Heard Ms.Santhi Chandra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for State / DRI and DGGI and Sri Kadiyam Neelakanteswara Rao, learned counsel for Respondents / Accused Nos.1 to 3.

4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for State / DRI and DGGI would submit that the investigation in the present case has been completed and charge sheet has also been filed before the trial Court on 01.04.2025, which is well within the statutory period. It is further submitted that, certain minor objections raised during scrutiny, and the objections raised by the Court were received by the Complainant on 16.04.2025 and on the same day, bail was granted to Accused Nos.1 to 3 by the trial Court by holding that the prosecution failed to comply with the objections raised and resubmit the charge sheet and also that, no application under Section 36(A) 4 of NDPS Act seeking extension of time for file charge sheet had also not been filed. It is submitted that minor procedural irregularities cannot be used as a basis to grant bail in serious cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics. It is further submitted that there were no substantial objections to be complied with except for producing CD containing photographs pertaining to the invesntory proceedings and creating two separate lists of documents submitted along with the complaint. As such, grant of default bail on that ground is not sustainable under law.

Learned Senior Standing Counsel would further submit that, prima facie case is made out against Accused Nos.1 to 3 and huge quantity of contraband i.e., 808.18 kgs of Ganja was also seized from their possession. It is argued that, in view of the embargo as contained in Section 37 of NDPS Act, Accused Nos.1 to 3 cannot be granted bail. It is further submitted that Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C has no application in the matters pertaining to the offences under NDPS Act. It is submitted that the severity of the crime and the potential impact of the seized contraband on the society must be considered while granting bail to the Accused in these types of cases.

Learned Senior Standing Counsel further contends that the magnitude of profit involved in narcotics trafficking provides strong incentives for continued criminal activity. In view of the role played by Accused Nos.1 to 3 in the alleged crime, there is every possibility of hampering the investigation and tampering with the prosecution evidence, if they are released on bail. Learned Senior Standing Counsel finally prays fo