Chandra Karuan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

There three Criminal Petitions are heard and disposed of by way of this common order as these three Petitions arise out of same crime but for different petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3.

¶47

These three Criminal Petitions have been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity 8the BNSS9), seeking to enlarge the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 on bail in Crime No.257 of 2025 of Vizianagaram I Town Police Station, Vizianagaram District, registered against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) read with 8(c) of Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 (for brevity 8the NDPS Act9) and read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity 8the BNS9).

¶48

Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are innocent. They were falsely implicated in these cases. They have not committed any offence. They are the sole breadwinners of the family. They have got fixed abode. They are ready to abide by any conditions the Court may deem fit to impose for enlarging the petitioners on bail, and therefore urge the Court to enlarge them on bail.

¶49

Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that so far only five witnesses have been examined. The investigation is not completed. Some more material witnesses are to be examined. The

¶50

4

¶51

Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.Nos.11845, 11852 & 11853 of 2025 Dated 02.12.2025

¶52

petitioners have indulged in possession and transportation of commercial quantity of Ganja. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the petition.

¶53

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

¶54

As seen from the record, Accused Nos.1 and 3 were found in possession and transportation of 30.00 kgs of ganja. Nothing was seized from the possession of Accused No.2, but he was found accompanying Accused Nos.1 and 3. Section 29 of 8the NDPS Act9, as seen from the material on record, is squarely applicable to the case on hand. All the petitioners were arrested at the spot. The first bail application filed by the petitioners was dismissed as withdrawn. Of course, there are no adverse or similar criminal antecedents reported against the petitioners. The petitioners were arrested on 22.07.2025 and have been in judicial custody for the past 133 days.

¶55

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 Hon9ble Apex Court.

¶56

7. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh¹ the Hon9ble Supreme Court at

¶57

Paragraph No.7 held as under :

¶58

<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.=

¶59

1 (1999) 9 SCC 429

¶60

5

¶61

Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.Nos.11845, 11852 & 11853 of 2025 Dated 02.12.2025

¶62

8. In Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)² the Hon9ble Apex Court at

¶63

Paragraph No.24 held as under:

¶64

<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.=

¶65

9. The Hon9ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh³ at Paragraph

¶66

Nos.8, 19, 20 and 21 held as under:

¶67

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.

¶68

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.

¶69

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.

¶70

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.

¶71

2 (1990) 1 SCC 95

¶72

3 (2020) 12 SCC 122

¶73

6

¶74

Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.Nos.11845, 11852 & 11853 of 2025 Dated 02.12.2025

¶75

In view of the law laid down by the Hon9ble 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 these Criminal Petitions for grant of bail to the petitioners. Hence, these three Criminal Petitions are liable to be dismissed.

¶76