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.4 on bail in Crime No.235 of 2025 of IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.4 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 22(c) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

2. Mr.P.Nasaraiah, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is at an impressionable age of 22 years. He is a student of BBA (2nd year) at Osmania University, Hyderabad. He submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen and that his parents are Government employees. He further submits that the petitioner would abide by any condition which this Court deems fit to impose while enlarging him on bail and, therefore, and it is urged to allow the petition.

3. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the grant of bail and submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender. She further submitted that a suspect sheet is maintained against the petitioner by the Mangalagiri Police and that the petitioner was involved in similar offences on earlier occasions. It is also submitted that the investigation is at a progressive stage and, therefore, urged this Court 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, the allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.4 is that he was indulged in dealing with 48 LSD blots, which is undoubtedly a commercial quantity. Accused Nos.1 and 3 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 02.11.2025, while the petitioner/Accused No.2 surrendered himself on 06.11.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 63 days. The petitioner is 22 years of age and is a student of BBA (2nd year) at Osmania University, Hyderabad, and his parents are Government employees. A suspect sheet is maintained against him by the Mangalagiri Police, and that the record reveals that he is a habitual offender with two similar antecedents, namely Crime No.94 of 2022 of Mangalagiri Police Station, Guntur District, and Crime No.423 of 2023 of Lalapet Police Station, Guntur Town, for allegedly indulging in dealing with MDMA. So far, eight witnesses have been examined, however, some more material witnesses are yet to be examined, further material is required to be collected, and the source of the commercial quantity of contraband is yet to be ascertained. The request for grant of bail to the petitioner at this juncture is not found convincing or reasonable.

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, and if he is enlarged on bail he would not commit similar offence in future. There are no merits in this case for grant of bail to the petitioner. 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.