1. 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 & 2 on bail in Crime No.361 of 2021 of Parawada Police Station, Visakhapatnam, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

2. Mr. G. Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that Petitioner No.1 is not the owner of the vehicle in question. There is no nexus between the Petitioners and the alleged offences. There are no similar adverse antecedents have been reported against the Petitioners. It is only on account of incorrect information provided by the informants of the Police Department that the Petitioners, who are innocent, have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. They have not committed any offence. The Petitioners are law-abiding citizens. They have got fixed abode. The Petitioners undertake to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioners. Hence, it is urged to allow the petition.

3. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioners. She submits that Accused No.1 is the owner of the auto, and Accused No.2 had aided in the transportation of 112 kgs of Ganja in the said auto, which was left upon sighting the police in the year 2021. The investigation is still pending, and several more witnesses are yet to be examined. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the petition.

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

5. As seen from the record, the Petitioners were arraigned as Accused Nos.1 & 2. The prosecution alleges that Accused No.1 is the owner of the auto, while Accused No.2 aided Accused No.1 in the transportation of 112 kgs of Ganja in the said auto. The alleged seizure of Ganja is a commercial quantity.

6. In the remand report, it is mentioned that one P. Ramana was the owner of the auto, which was subsequently transferred in the name of one Srinu, and thereafter in the name of Konda Satish. However, the prosecution alleges that Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 was the owner of the auto at the relevant point of time, i.e., on 18.11.2021. No document has been filed to establish that Accused No.1 was not the owner of the auto at the said time.

7. It is alleged by the prosecution that the auto, in which 112 kgs of Ganja was kept, was left. The Petitioners were arrested on 31.03.2026. They have been in judicial custody for the past 83 days. The investigation is still pending. So far, only 8 witnesses have been examined, and even the material portion of the investigation has not yet been completed.

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

9. 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.”

10. 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.”

11. 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.

12. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Samujh, Durand Didier and Rajesh, 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, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

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

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