CRLP/2938/2026 of Tuna Nayak Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 3 May 2026

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner/Accused No. 3 in connection with Crime No. 27 of 2025 on the file of the Station House Officer, Munchingiput Police Station, Alluri Sitharamaraju District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.05.2025, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were caught red-handed while transporting 350 kilograms of ganja, which is a commercial quantity. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the present petitioner (Accused No. 3) had placed an order with Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for supply of ganja. Acting upon the said order, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 procured and transported the contraband and were apprehended. Subsequently, they were arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

3. Heard Sri Dr. Majji Suribabu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mrs. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the implication of the petitioner is solely based on the alleged confession statements of Accused Nos. 1 and 2. It is further submitted that certain handwritten words in the mediators’ report create suspicion regarding its genuineness. The learned counsel also relied upon a recent judgment in Raman Sahni vs. State of U.P., to contend that anticipatory bail is maintainable even in cases involving offences under the NDPS Act.

5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, contending that the alleged discrepancies in the mediators’ report cannot be examined at this stage. It is submitted that the case involves commercial quantity of ganja and that the petitioner is a key conspirator, acting as receiver and seller in the illegal trafficking network. It is further submitted that the charge sheet has already been filed showing the petitioner as absconding and that his custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the conspiracy. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also relied upon the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation that the petitioner absconded is incorrect.

7. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also relied upon the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh1 at Paragraph Nos.8, 19, 20 and 21 held as under:

1 (2020) 12 SCC 122

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.

9. In the present case, the material on record prima facie discloses the involvement of the petitioner in the illegal trafficking of ganja. The allegations against the petitioner are not merely based on confession statements, but are also supported by seizure of contraband from his possession. Further, the charge sheet has been filed showing the petitioner as absconding, which indicates that he has not cooperated with the investigation.

10. At this stage, this Court is unable to record a finding that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty for the alleged offences. Further, considering the nature of the allegations and the role attributed to the petitioner, this Court is of the view that there is a very likelihood of the petitioner interfering with the investigation if he is granted anticipatory bail. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

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

__________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Dated 04.05.2026 KKV

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2938/2026 Dated 04-05-2026

Dated 04.05.2026 KKV