CRLP/3505/2026 of Gullupalli Hari Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 3 May 2026

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner/Accused No.1, seeking regular bail, in connection with Crime No. 22 of 2026 on the file of Nathavaram Police Station, Anakapalli District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b) (ii) (C) r/w 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, this petitioner was found in possession of 168 Kilograms of Ganja.

3. Heard Reddy Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case. The investigation might have been completed by this time. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 23.02.2026. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court and finally prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the contraband involved in the present case is a commercial quantity of 168 kilograms of Ganja, the investigation is still pending and that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 23.02.2026. She would further submit that, the petitioner was involved in another similar case which is registered under the provision of NDPS Act. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor finally prays 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 168 Kgs of Ganja, which is a commercial quantity and that the investigation is still pending, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage.

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 1 (2020) 12 SCC 122

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 cannot be considered at this juncture inasmuch as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner 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.

__________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 04.05.2026 KKV

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3505/2026 Dt.04.05.2026

KKV