VISSARAPU v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12646 OF 2025 ORDER:- The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 on bail in Crime No.193 of 2025 of Anakapalli Town Police Station, registered against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 herein for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

2. Heard Mr.Arrabolu Sai Naveen, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocents, they have not committed any offence, they were falsely implicated in this case and they are law abiding citizens. He would further submit that they have got fixed abode. If certain conditions are imposed, there is no likelihood of their absconding or evading the process of law and urged to allow the criminal petition.

4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argues that the petitioners were indulged in dealing with commercial quantity of ganja. The charge sheet was filed within the statutory period of 180 days. There are criminal adverse 4 antecedents against the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 3, 5 & 7 and urged to dismiss the criminal petition.

5. On perusal of the record, the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 were arrested on 23.08.2025. They have been in judicial custody for the past 154 days. The allegation against the petitioners are that they had indulged in dealing with 240 kgs of ganja, which is not only a commercial quantity but also a colossal quantity. The charge sheet was filed after thorough investigation on

05.12.2025 i.e., much before the expiry of 180 days of default bail. There is one similar adverse antecedent reported against the petitioner Nos.3 & 5/accused Nos.4 and 6. In view of the fact that the charge sheet was filed within the statutory period of 180 days, the petitioners cannot claim entitlement to default bail after the completion of 180 days. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

6. This Court also feels that the accusations against the petitioners are well founded. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala and Others v. Rajesh and Others1 at para Nos.18, 19, 20 and 21 held as under: “18. This Court has laid down broad parameters to be followed while considering the application for bail moved by the accused involved in the offences under the NDPS Act. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh [Union of India v. Ram Samujh, (1999) 9 SCC 429 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1522] , it has been elaborated as under: 1 (2020)12 SCC 122 5 “7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is required to be adhered to and followed. It should be borne in mind that in a murder case, the accused commits murder of one or two persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instrumental in causing death or in inflicting death-blow to a number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable; it causes deleterious effects and a deadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the society; even if they are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue their nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicants clandestinely. Reason may be large stake and illegal profit involved. This Court, dealing with the contention with regard to punishment under the NDPS Act, has succinctly observed about the adverse effect of such activities in Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa) [Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa), (1990) 1 SCC 95 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 65] as under: (SCC p. 104, para 24) „24. With deep concern, we may point out that the organised activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have led to drug addiction among a sizeable section of the public, particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes and the menace has assumed serious and alarming proportions in the recent years. Therefore, proliferating and booming devastating menace, causing deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society as a whole, Parliament in its wisdom, has made effective provisions by introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory minimum imprisonment and fine.‟ to effectively control and eradicate in order

8. To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market, Parliament has provided that the person accused of offences under the NDPS Act should not be released on bail during trial unless the mandatory conditions provided in Section 37, namely, (i) guilty of such offence; and there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail are satisfied. The High Court has not given any justifiable reason for not abiding by the aforesaid mandate while ordering the release of the respondent-accused on bail. Instead of attempting to take a holistic view of the harmful socio- economic consequences and health hazards which would accompany trafficking illegally in dangerous drugs, the court should implement the law in the spirit with which Parliament, after due deliberation, has amended.” This extract is taken from State of Kerala v. Rajesh, (2020) 12 SCC 122: (2020) 4 SCC(Cri) 147: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 81 at page 129

19. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained under Section 439 CrPC, but is also subject to the limitation placed by Section 37 which commences with non obstante clause. The operative part of the said section is in the negative form prescribing the enlargement of bail to any person accused of commission of an offence under the Act, unless twin conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application; and the second, is that the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not 6 guilty of such offence. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting bail operates. This extract is taken from State of Kerala v. Rajesh, (2020) 12 SCC 122: (2020) 4 SCC(Cri) 147: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 81 at page 129

20. The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High Court seems to have completely over looked the underlying object of Section 37 that in addition to the limitations provided under the CrPC, or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for. This extract is taken from State of Kerala v. Rajesh, (2020) 12 SCC 122: (2020) 4 SCC(Cri) 147: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 81 at page 129

21. We may further like to observe that the learned Single Judge has failed to record a finding mandated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act which is a sine qua non for granting bail to the accused under the NDPS Act.”

7. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh, Ram Samujh and Durand Didier, the request of the petitioners cannot be considered at this juncture inasmuch as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners have not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence. There are no merits in this case for grant of bail to the petitioners. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Date: 27.01.2026 S D P __________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J 7 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12646 OF 2025

27.01.2026 S D P