NAKUL SINGH v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

1. NAKUL SINGH, S/O. JOG SINGH, AGED 30 YEARS, C/O. RAJPUT, R/O. HUKUMPETA, SRI RAMADEVI BOOK STATIONERY, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, NELAPADU THROUGH THE SHO, KIRLAMPUDI PS., KAKINADA. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to release the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in connection with Crime No. 210 of 2025 of Kiriampudi P.S., Kakinada Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. BOPPUDI ALEKHYA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1549 OF 2026 ORDER:- The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime.No.210 of 2025 of Kirlampudi Police Station, Kakinada District, registered against the Petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

2. Heard Ms.Boppudi Alekhya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing respondent/State. Perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner and other accused were found in possession of 24.690 grams of ganja on 10.12.2025 and the police arrested the accused and seized the said contraband.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. It is further submit that 3 the petitioner is a sole breadwinner of his family. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner.

5. Mr.K.Sandeep, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner was indulged in dealing with 24.690 grams of ganja. The investigation is at nascent stage and urged to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner/Accused No.1 was arrested on the spot while he was in possession of 24.690 grams of ganja. The seized ganja is a commercial quantity. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail. This Court is also of the view that there is no material to presume that the petitioner has not committed the offence alleged, and there is a likelihood that, if enlarged on bail, he may commit a similar offence in future. The investigation is at a progressive stage and some more witnesses are yet to be examined. The petitioner was arrested on 10.12.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 85 days.

7. Further, statutory period of judicial remand for 180 days is not completed. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 4

8. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh 1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Paragraph No.7 held as under: “In murder cases the harm is limited to one or two individuals, whereas narcotics offences destroy numerous vulnerable lives and have a deadly impact on society; offenders involved in drug trafficking pose a continuous hazard and are likely to persist in their illicit activities if released, and therefore strict adherence to the legislative mandate is essential.”

9. In Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)2 the Hon’ble Apex Court at Paragraph No.24 held as under: “The organised underworld activities and clandestine trafficking of narcotic drugs have caused widespread addiction, especially among adolescents and students, turning the menace into a serious and alarming social problem. To combat this devastating threat with its deadly impact on society, Parliament recognised the need for strong measures. Consequently, it enacted Act 81 of 1985, introducing strict provisions with mandatory minimum imprisonment and fines.”

10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh3 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