(Prayer: 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 Court pleased to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in Crime no. 208/2025 of Payakaraopeta Police Station and pass)

1. This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner/Accused No.1, seeking regular bail, in Crime no. 208/2025 of Payakaraopeta Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 29(1) r/w Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 18.08.2025, the police along with mediators apprehended the accused while they were in possession of 200 Kgs of Ganja in the form of seeds, buds, stems and flowers. The police have arrested the accused on 18.08.2025 and since then, the accused No.1 has been in judicial custody.

3. Heard Ms. Samantha Krishna Sriramakavacham, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and that she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. She was falsely implicated in this case. She would further submit that no contraband was seized from the possession of the petitioner. The recovery was made from the vehicle which was not registered in her name.

                  The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 18.08.2025. Statutory period is also over. The investigation might have been completed by this time. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court and finally prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the contraband involved in the present case is a commercial quantity of 200 kilograms of Ganja and that the petitioner has have been in judicial custody since 18.08.2025. The petitioner was arrested while she was in possession of the contraband. She would further submit that though the statutory period has been completed, a petition was filed before the concerned Court for remand extension and the same was allowed, the remand was extended to 260 days. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Considering the submissions and a fair look on the material placed before this Court, it is a case involving 200 Kgs of Ganja, which is a commercial quantity. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that remand was extended to 260 days by the learned Trial Court. At this juncture, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioners on bail.

7. 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.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, 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 and if the petitioner is released on bail he would not commit similar offence in future. There are no merits in the Criminal Petition for grant of bail to the petitioner. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.