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 Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime.No.37 of 2026 of Naidupet Urban Police Station, Tirupati 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.Bhooma Maharshi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State. Perused the record.

The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner and other accused were found in possession of 23 kgs of ganja on 04.02.2026 and the police arrested the accused and seized the said contraband.

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

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is at nascent stage, inventory is not completed and also the statutory period is not over and urged to dismiss the criminal petition.

On perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner/Accused No.1 was arrested on the spot while he was in possession of 23 kgs of ganja. No doubt 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 petitioner has not committed the offence alleged, and there is a likelihood that, if enlarged on bail, he may commit a similar offence in future. The investigation is at a progressive stage and some more witnesses are yet to be examined. The inventory has also not completed. The petitioner was arrested on 04.02.2026. He has been in judicial custody for the past 64 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 in State of Kerala v. Rajesh³(2020) 12 SCC 122, 2026:APHC:17311 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