CRLP/4098/2026 of Guda Bojjam Naidu alias Naidu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 6 May 2026

ORDER:

his Criminal Petition, filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), is filed by the petitioner/Accused No.5 seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.177 of 2025 of Kasimkota Police Station, Anakapalli District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “NDPS Act”).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.08.2025 at about 1:00 PM, near Sattemma Thalli Colony Turning Junction, Kasimkota, the police, in the presence of mediators including Revenue officials, intercepted the accused persons while they were allegedly transporting ganja. It is alleged that Accused Nos.1 to 5 were found in possession of 262 kilograms of ganja packed in 131 packets and kept in seven gunny bags, which were being transported in a Mahindra Scorpio bearing Registration No.AP 31 CU 2356, while two of the accused allegedly acted as pilots on a TVS Jupiter Scooty bearing Registration No.AP 40 BW 7712. During the raid, one accused allegedly escaped. The police arrested Accused Nos.1 to 4 on the spot and seized the contraband, four mobile phones, the above vehicles, and cash of Rs.3,200/- under the cover of a mediators’ report. Subsequently, the arrested accused were remanded to judicial custody on 02.08.2025. The present petitioner/Accused No.5 was arrested later and remanded to judicial custody on 12.08.2025, and since then he has been in jail.

3. Heard Sri G. Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is contended that no contraband was seized from the possession of the petitioner and that, according to the alleged confession statements of Accused Nos.1 to 4, the petitioner merely acted as a pilot vehicle escort during the transportation of ganja. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 12.08.2025 and that though the statutory period has expired, no extension petition was filed by the prosecution. It is also contended that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family. Hence, he prayed for grant of regular bail on suitable conditions.

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition contending that the contraband involved in the present case is 226 kilograms of ganja, which is a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. She further submits that the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has already been filed. It is also contended that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of his absconding and indulging in similar offences. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Considering the submissions and a fair look on the material placed before this Court, it is a case involving 226 Kgs of Ganja, which is a commercial quantity. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed in this matter.

7. 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.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the request of the petitioner/accused No.5 cannot be considered at this juncture inasmuch as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner 1 (2020) 12 SCC 122

has not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence and if the petitioner is released on bail he would not commit similar offence in future. There are no merits in the Criminal Petition for grant of bail to the petitioner. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

___________________________________

DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 07.05.2026. KKV

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4098 of 2026 Date: 07.05.2026

KKV