1. 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 Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.211 of 2025 of Tuni Town Police Station, Kakinada District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 8 (c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

2. Sri G.Venkata Subba Raju, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the petitioner is a coolie. He has got an aged mother. He has got small children. He has not committed any offence. He is innocent. He is a law- abiding citizen. He was falsely implicated in this case. He would abide by any condition which this Court deems fit to enlarge the Petitioner on bail. The petitioner is the house owner of Accused Nos.2 to 9 who were allegedly indulged in dealing with the contraband. The petitioner has no connection with the contraband. It is only alleged by the prosecution that the petitioner was in possession of 2 kgs of ganja, and it is urged to enlarge the petitioner on bail as he is the permanent resident of Jaggampeta Village and Mandal and he has got fixed abode.

3. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that it is not that the petitioner was found in possession of 2 kgs of ganja, but the total contraband seized was 25 kgs, which is a commercial quantity. There was no apportionment at all, as the seized contraband was found in one bag. The petitioner, along with the other accused, was involved in possession of the contraband. The investigation is at a crucial stage, some more material witnesses are yet to be examined, and therefore, it is urged to dismiss the petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

5. On perusal of the record, it is alleged that the petitioner, in active connivance with the other accused, indulged in dealing with 25 kgs of ganja, which is a commercial quantity. The petitioner was spot-arrested. There are four adverse criminal antecedents reported against the petitioner. However, there are no cases under ‘the NDPS Act’ pending against the petitioner. So far, 12 witnesses have been examined. The investigation is at a crucial stage, and some more material witnesses are yet to be examined. Further, the source of the commercial quantity of ganja is yet to be ascertained by the police. This Court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is innocent and that, if he is enlarged on bail, he would not commit any offence.

6. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

7. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh((1999) 9 SCC 429) 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.”

8. In Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)( (1990) 1 SCC 95) 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.”

9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh((2020) 12 SCC 122) 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 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.

10. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Samujh, Durand Didier and Rajesh supra, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture inasmuch as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence. Having regard to the pendency of the investigation, the request for the enlargement of the petitioner on bail is not found convincing and reasonable. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

                  As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.