CRLP/1939/2026 of Sushila Das Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 16 March 2026

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), by the petitioner/Accused No.1, seeking grant of regular bail in Crime No.46 of 2026 dated 05.02.2026 on the file of Visakhapatnam Railway Police Station, GRP Vijayawada District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “NDPS Act”).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.02.2026 between 11:00 hours and 13:30 hours, at Loco End, Platform No.01 of Visakhapatnam Railway Station, the complainant—ASI/RPF along with his staff, CPDS team and GRP personnel—conducted checking as part of routine surveillance. During the course of checking, the petitioner was found in possession of a backpack containing four packets of dry ganja weighing about 8 kilograms, valued at approximately Rs.4,00,000/-. On enquiry, it is alleged that the petitioner procured the ganja from Brahmapur in Odisha State at a low price and intended to transport and sell the same at a higher price in Chennai. The contraband was seized in the presence of mediators and a Gazetted Officer, and necessary seizure proceedings were conducted. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

3. Heard Sri Ramakoteshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mrs. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 05.02.2026. He would further submit that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He would further submitthat there are no specific allegations and no prima facie case is made out against him. The learned counsel also contends that the alleged seizure is doubtful and that the petitioner is willing to furnish sureties and abide by any conditions imposed by this Court.

5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, submitting that the investigation is still in progress and the statutory period is not over. Charge-sheet has not filed. She would further submit that the quantity of contraband seized is of commercial quantity and the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted. It is also contended that the inventory process is not yet completed, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner was allegedly found in possession of a substantial quantity of ganja, which is stated to be of commercial quantity. The seizure is said to have been effected in the presence of mediators and a Gazetted Officer, and the investigation is still in progress.

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh1at 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 petitioner does not deserve for grant of regular bail at this stage. 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 Date: 17-03-2026 KKV

1(2020) 12 SCC 122

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:1939 /2026

Dt.17.03.2026

KKV