CIVIL APPEAL 10053 of 2025 on 19 October 2001

ORDER:

Heard]

Sri Kona N.D.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for thepetl-tioner/accused No.4 and-the learned public Prosecutor-appearing forthe Respondent-State.

1l The Criminal Petition has been filed under sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatl'ya Nagarik Suraksha sanhl'ta, 2023, seeking to enlarge thepetitioner/Accused No.4 on bail in Crime.No.172 of 2025 of Karapa Policestation, Kakjnada, East Godavari District, registered against thePetitioner/Accused No.4 herein for the offences punishable under Sections8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and psychotropI'C SubstancesAct,1985.

2. The case of_the prosecution is that on 20.09.2025 at about 10.-00A.M., on receipt of credibI6 informatl'on regarding illegal transportation ofganja, the sub-Inspector of police, Karapa Police Station, along with staffand mediators, conducted a raid and found the accused Nos.1 to 4 inpossession of GanJ'a and SeI-Zed the contraband of 03.174 kgs of Ganja in aplastic bag fro'm the accused. After recording the confessl'onal statements,the police registered a case in cr.No.172 of 2025 against the accused andarrested them. Hence the FIR.

3. Sri Kona N.D.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for thepetifiunger/accused Nol4 contends that the pet,-tioner was having o3.174 kgs of Ganja packet and the same is within permissible limits i.e., non-commercial quantity. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.4 alsocontended that the petitioner is a student and is pursuing ll year of BBMCourse`at-VSM College,-Ramachandrapuram. He further invited ~this courtto impose conditions, so that the future of the petitioner may not be put topreJ'udiCe. ln the light Of the foregoing SubmiSSiOnS, learned counsel Praysthat the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice.

4. On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor contended thatthough the quantity of the contraband seized is within the permissible limits,the offence which is related to the present crime cannot be omitted as perthe ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sfafe of Kera/a v. Ra/-esh andrequested to dI'SmiSS the Present Criminal Petition.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sfafe of Kera/a v. Ra/-esh7 held asfollows:

l€17. lt may be noticed that Hashish oil is shown at SI. No.13 in the notificationdated 19th October, 2001 issued by the Central Government in exercise ofpower under Section 2(viia) and (xxiiia) of the NDPS Act. Hashish oil above 1 kgis commercial quantity.

18. The jurisdiction of the Court to grant bail is circumscribed by the provisions ofSection 37 of the NDPS Act. It can be granted in case there are reasonablegrounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offence, and that he is notlikely to commit any offence while on bail. It is the mandate of the legislaturewhich' is required to be followed. At this juncture, a reference to Section 37 of theAct is apposite. That provision makes the offences under the Act cognizable andnon-bailable. It reads thus:-37. Offences to be cognizable and nan-bailable.(1)Notwithstanding anything containecl in the code of criminal procedure,1973 (2of 1974), 1 (2020) 12 SCC 122

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable~, (b) pp pe_rson accused of an offence punishable for [offences under section 19 ors_eLC_ti,P: _21_ ,or se?tion, 27A and_ elso for offences involving commercial quanti{;Ishall be released on bail or on his own bond unless

(I)_ i_h_e Publi,c Prosecu.tor has been given an opportunity to oppose the applicationfor such release, and (.i!) yh.ere the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfiedt!±t_ :here ?r,: r.e.as?nable.__grounds for believing that he is not guilty of s;;hoffence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

(3!_T:!_e_I:,#lt.?flo,ns,pn .prert!rg of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1)a^rse jn^.a!\diti_?_n _to the,.limit?tion3 un!er the Code of Criminal procedure,197i ('2o,f_ _1_374)_,. or any ?,ther law for the time being in force on grantin6 ;; -b=;I.(emphasis supplied)

1t::T^h_i:,::3L:_rf_hla_? I_a_i? down ProaP parameters to be followed while consideringtPe.appI.i?a:ion f_or bail moved by the accus;d involved in offences und;r-iri;-i:sApt.. ln Ynipn of lnPia Vs. Ram Samujh and ors.1999(9) SCC 429, it has--b=;ne±_b_o_:=fed. as un.der.: 7: lt is_to be borne in mind thit 'the afores=id I;dr;I-;i;;aTa?gate is reftuired to be adhered to and followed. lt should be born;i; -;;;dt|f_a_i_ir a murder c?se, the €ccused commits murder of one or two person;, -;-h'il-et!:::L P^:r:S_Or_:,.I.h_O ?re ,Pe?I.ing ,in narcotic drugs are instrume;tal-i-n -;a-;:;;g?=?th or i.n ipflicting de_at_h-blow to a number of i-nnocent young victims, ;;;-;raev^urI^ne:able_i!t_:,a::e:, deleteri?us effects_3nd a deadly imiact ;a the so6iety: i-h;ya_r_e_La_,_P:zar,! to the. .society; even if they are rele-ased temporarily: 'in -;llpalr:_b,:_b:_Iif!,. tfiey w?uld. coptinye their nefario_us activities of tr=fficki;i ;;a;;r?_e,:!i:!~ :,n -I::_3:ic^ants,cia.nd€stinely._ Reason wiay be large stake and ill;g;I-;;;iti:_I_?,Iy=!,. T`P±_9o.ur, _dealing with the conte;tion with regard i; i;;ani:;i;:;iunq.er,:he .ND_PS Act, has succinctly observed about the aiverse efre;i i;;--:-u-;ia^cEti\:it!l=S _I_n_,Purand D-Idler V. Chief Secy., Union Territory of Goa [(1990)-i -:i695)] as under:

?f. with_ deep concern, we may. point out that the organised activities oft!=_ __:_n_!erw.orld .apd the cland6stine smuggling of -narcotic drug; -a;dp_:_I:_Potropic .su.bstanc?s into this country and -IIlegal trafficking ;n su;hdr.ups and_ ?_ubstances have led to drug addiction a;ong a sizeaile s;;{ii;?I the public, particularly the adolescents and students of both sexe: -;ndthe mena_ce has assumed serious and alarming proportions in the ;e;;;iyears_. TPerefore, in order to effectively control and eradicate {h-iSPrOIi.fe.rating .and booming devastating menace, causing deleterious effe;;sa_nd Pea?!y iylPaCt On_the society as a whole, Parliami;nt in its wisdom, ;;sm_a_!~e_,_el:=?±i_v.e.provi?ions. by introducing this Act 81 of 1985 spe;ifyi-;gmandatory minimum imprisonment and fine.

8. To. ?hppft tfi? menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market, parliament hasProvided that the person accused of offences under the NDPS Act should ;ot -ire released onbail during trial unless the mandatory conditions provided in section37l namely|

(I)..t^hLe:en_a_r=_reaS?nable grounds for believing that, the accused is `not guilty ofsuch offence; and

(I)^t.!ulat Lh:his_n_Olt I:FeJy to con:mi.i.~apy. offence while on bail are satisfied. The High??urf, Fas r?i givpn_ any justifiable reason for not abiding by i-hi ;;;r=:oa-iimPnd?te wPile ordering the release of the respondent-accu-sed-on bail. I;-st-:-iraof attempting to take a ~holistic view of the harmful socio----=;-;-n-;;;ccalo^n_s~e_q_u_:_n_c=,: and .Pealth h?za.rds which would accompany trafficking illegally indna:gerous, dry.gs, .the _court should implement the lavi i; the spirit-wit;-;lhi;iParliament, after due cleliberation, has amended."

6. For convenience the provisions that are laid down under section 37

of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic substances, Act, 1985, areextracted hereunder:

37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the code of criminal procedure,1973(2 of 1974)I- (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offenc; punishable for [offences under section19 or sectI'On 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercl'alquantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-

(i) the public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose theapplication for such release, and

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court issatisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is notguilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offencewhile on bail.

(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-s`ectjon (1)are' in addition to the limitations under the code of crI'mI'naI Procedure, 1973 (2of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.'l

7. In view of the above mandatory provisions and opportunities provl'ded to the learned public Prosecutor, this court I'S Satisfied that the petitl-oner will not commI-I any Offence, if .he iS released On bail, much less, taking into consideration the academic career of the petitioner. lt is also pointed out bythe learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutorthat there are-no-other cases of NDPS or any other Criminal Cases that are ~pending against the petitioner/accused No.4.

8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for thepetitioner, this Court is inclined {o enlarge the petitioner/accused No.4 onbail with the following stringent conditions:

I'. The petitioner/Accused No.4 shall be enlarged on bailsubject to his executing a personal bond for a sum ofRs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with one suretyfor the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned SpecialJudicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition & Excise,Kakinada.

ii. The petitioner/Accused No.4 shall appear before theStation House Officer concerned on every Saturday inbetween 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken bythe learned Trial Court.

iii. The petitioner/Accused No.4 shall not leave the limits ofthe District without prior permission from the Station HouseOfficer concerned.

`.\

\

*=.,tir^I.,\€`,-dsife

Q\.

iv. The petitioner/Accused No.4 shall not commit or indulgein commission of any offence in future.

v. The petitioner/Accused No.4 shall cooperate with theinvestigating officer in further investigation of-the case andshall make himself available for interrogation by theinvestigating officer as and when required.

vi. The petitioner/Accused No.4 shall not, directly orindirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to anyperson acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuadehim/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any policeofficer-

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

SD/-M.SRINIVASASSISTANT\REGIS.

//TRUE COPY//

OFFICEP`

For

To]

1. The Special Junior First Class Magistrate of Prohibition & Excise,Kakinada.Kakinada.

2. The.Superintendent, Sub-Jal'l, Kakinada.

3. The Station House Officer, Karapa Police Station, E.G. District.

4. One CC to Sri. Kona N.D.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court ofAP [OUT]

6. One spare copy

MM

-tififigivke

rfu--i--.

HIGH COURT

i±'

a

--)

DATED:03/10/2025

ORDER

CRLP.No.10053 of 2025

ALLOWED