Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLP/4042/2026 of Tarun Kumar Gopi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 5 May 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: Between: 1. TARUN KUMAR GOPI, S/O. GOPI, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,R/O. BUDURU VILLAGE, SATYAVEDU POST,BUDUR, MADAHARPAKKAM,
APHC010255462026
IN THE H
(
WEDNES
TWO T
THE HONOURABLE DR
CRIMIN
Between:
1. TARUN KUMAR GO
BUDURU
VILL
MADAHARPAKKAM, T
2. A DINESH, S/O. A
SATYAVEDU
VILL
DISTRICT.
1. THE STATE OF A
PUBLIC PROSECUTO
Petition under Section
praying that in the circums
Criminal Petition, the High C
and 7 on bail pending in
Golugonda Police Station,
Counsel for the Petitioner
1.PREM KUMAR T
Counsel for the Responde
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTO
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
SDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY
THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
R JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PR
NAL PETITION NO: 4042/2026
PI, S/O. GOPI, AGED ABOUT 24 YE
LAGE,
SATYAVEDU
POS
TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT,TAMILNADU S
ARMUGAM, AGED ABOUT 30 YE
LAGE,
SATYAVEDU
MANDAL,C
...PETITIONER/ACC
AND
NDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED
OR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARA
...RESPONDENT/COMP
n 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528
stances stated in the Memorandum of G
Court pleased to release the petitioners/
nvestigation and trial in Crime No 78
Anakapalli District (Visakhapatnam)
r/accused(S):
ent/complainant:
OR
RATAPA
EARS,R/O.
T,BUDUR,
STATE.
EARS,R/O.
CHITTOOR
CUSED(S)
D BY ITS
AVATHI.
PLAINANT
8 of BNSS
Grounds of
/Accused- 3
of 2025 of
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4042 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER :
This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 7, seeking regular bail, in Crime No. 78 of 2025 of Golugonda Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 r/w Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, the petitioners and 7 other accused were together found in possession of 216 Kgs of ganja.
3. None represented for the petitioners. The petitioners herein are the Accused Nos.3 and 7, who has been in judicial custody since 19.08.2025. Since this is a regular bail application, this Court is inclined to proceed with the matter as the right and liberty of the individuals is involved.
4. Mrs. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the contraband involved in the present case is a huge commercial quantity of 216 kilograms of Ganja and that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 19.08.2025. The petitioners were arrested while they were in possession of the contraband. 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 216 Kgs of Ganja, which is a huge commercial quantity. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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: 4042 of 2026 Date: 06.05.2026
UPS