CRLP/4079/2026 of Paturu Sankar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 5 May 2026

ORDER :

This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 7 and 8, seeking regular bail, in Crime No. 17 of 2024 of Sileru Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 111(2)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 r/w Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 03.10.2024, the SI of Sileru P.S., on credible information, conducted vehicle checking at Guntava Dam in Sileru Village. While so, the police have noticed six persons in a auto coming towards Sileru side and on seeing the police, they tried to escaped by leaving the auto. The SI along with his staff apprehended three accused while the others managed to escape. During the course of investigation, the accused disclosed their address particulars and basing on the confession statements, the police seized 223.100 Kgs of Ganja under the cover of mediators’ report.

3. Heard Sri Gollapalli Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. They were falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel would further submit that no contraband was seized from the possession of the petitioners and the petitioners were arrayed as accused basing on the confession statements of the co-accused. The petitioners have been in judicial custody since 23.09.2025. The petitioners were arrested and produced before the Court for judicial custody on execution of PT Warrants. He would further submit that all the other accused in the present crime were released on regular bail. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court and finally prays to grant bail to the petitioners.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the contraband involved in the present case is a commercial quantity of 223.100 kilograms of Ganja and that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 23.09.2025. She would further submit that the investigation is completed in this matter and charge sheet is also filed. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that the other accused were released on default bail. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Considering the submissions and a fair look at the material placed before this Court, it is a case involving 223.100 Kgs of Ganja, which is a huge 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 petitioners cannot be considered at this juncture inasmuch as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners have not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence and if the petitioners are released on bail they would not commit similar offence in future. There are no 1 (2020) 12 SCC 122

merits in the Criminal Petition for grant of bail to the petitioners. 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: 06.05.2026. UPS

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4079 of 2026 Date: 06.05.2026

UPS