Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail for commercial quantities is prohibited unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

Petition under Section 437 /438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court Pleased to grant petitioners/A2 to A4, bail on such terms and conditions as deemed fit directing their enlargement in Crime No. 380 of 2025 of Nellore Rural Police Station, SPSR Nellore District on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper and pass

The Court made the following:

ORDER:-

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 on bail in Crime.No.380 of 2025 of Nellore Rural Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, registered against the Petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

Heard Mr.V.Yatendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State. Perused the record.

The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioners and other accused were found in possession of 22.440 grams of ganja on 26.11.2025 and the police arrested the accused and seized the said contraband.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are innocents and have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. The petitioners undertake to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioners.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner was indulged in dealing with 22.440 grams of ganja. The investigation is at nascent stage and urged to dismiss the criminal petition.

On perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 was arrested on the spot while they were in possession of 22.440 grams of ganja. The seized ganja is a commercial quantity. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail. This Court is also of the view that there is no material to presume that the petitioners have not committed the offence alleged, and there is a likelihood that, if enlarged on bail, they may commit a similar offence in future. The investigation is at a progressive stage and some more witnesses are yet to be examined. The petitioners were arrested on 27.11.2025. They have been in judicial custody for the past 96 days.

Further, statutory period of judicial remand for 180 days is not completed. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

In Union of India v. Ram Samujh¹(1999) 9 SCC 429 the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Paragraph No.7 held as under:

“In murder cases the harm is limited to one or two individuals, whereas narcotics offences destroy numerous vulnerable lives and have a deadly impact on society; offenders involved in drug trafficking pose a continuous hazard and are likely to persist in their illicit activities if released, and therefore strict adherence to the legislative mandate is essential.”

In Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)²(1990) 1 SCC 95 the Hon’ble Apex Court at Paragraph No.24 held as under:

“The organised underworld activities and clandestine trafficking of narcotic drugs have caused widespread addiction, especially among adolescents and students, turning the menace into a serious and alarming social problem. To combat this devastating threat with its deadly impact on society, Parliament recognised the need for strong measures. Consequently, it enacted Act 81 of 1985, introducing strict provisions with mandatory minimum imprisonment and fines.”

The Hon’ble Apex Court