Common Order:

1. There two Criminal Petitions are heard and disposed of by way of this common order arise from two different crimes but the Petitioner is one and the same.

2. The Criminal Petition No.11070 of 2025 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.11 on bail in Crime No.306 of 2024 of II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.11 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’).

3. The Criminal Petition No.12337 of 2025 has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the ‘the BNSS’, seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.3 on bail in Crime No.302 of 2024 of Malkapuram Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.3 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) read with 8(c) of ‘the NDPS Act’.

4. Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the case. He is a law-abiding citizen and that he has not committed any offence. He is the sole breadwinner of his family. In Crime No.302 of 2024 of Malkapuram Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, 90 kgs of ganja was allegedly found in a house belonging to Accused Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner, who is Accused No.3 in the said crime, is in no way connected with the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated on the basis of the confession of Accused Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner has got fixed abode. He would abide by any conditions that this Court may deem fit to impose while enlarging him on bail, and it is urged to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender. There are altogether three cases registered against the petitioner. The modus operandi was to bring ganja to the said house by availing courier service agents and thereafter divide the contraband into convenient packets and send them to the desired destinations through couriers. The investigation is at a crucial stage. A huge quantity of ganja is involved in this case, and it is urged to dismiss the petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

7. On perusal of the record, with regard to the allegations in Crime No.302 of 2024, 90 kgs of ganja was found in a house which allegedly belongs to Accused Nos.1 and 2, who gave confessional statements against the petitioner/Accused No.3 stating that nine courier packets of ganja were transported to Delhi. Of course, the name of the petitioner is not found in the FIR in Crime No.302 of 2024. Altogether, 90 kgs of ganja was involved in this case. It is a commercial quantity. The petitioner was arrested on 10.10.2025 and has been in judicial custody for the past 90 days.

8. With regard to the allegations in Crime No.306 of 2024, it is stated that the petitioner procured ganja, packed it along with decorative items, and transported it to different states through courier services with the assistance of his henchmen, including Accused Nos.6 to 10, who are natives of Patna, Bihar. Altogether, 192 kgs of ganja were transported to Delhi by the accused through DTDC Courier, Gollalapalem, but the consignment was returned to the DTDC centre at Gollalapalem due to non-availability of the receiver in Delhi. There is another case registered by the Delhi Police vide Crime No.246 of 2025 under the provisions of ‘the NDPS Act’ for alleged involvement in dealing with 60 kgs of ganja. Altogether, three cases under the provisions of ‘the NDPS Act’ have been registered against the petitioner for allegedly dealing with huge quantities of ganja by employing professional services. The petitioner was arrested on 07.08.2025 and has been in judicial custody for the past 154 days.

9. Further, statutory period of judicial remand for 180 days is not completed. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

10. 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.”

11. 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.”

12. 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.

13. 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. There are no merits in these Criminal Petitions for grant of bail to the petitioner. Hence, these two Criminal Petitions are liable to be dismissed.

14. In the result, these two Criminal Petitions are dismissed.

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