Bondalapati Nageshwara Rao, Vs Union of India

Union of India, through Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Hyderabad the Sub-Zone, Represented by its Special Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶12

...RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT

¶13

Petition filed under Section 480 & 483 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct release of the Petitioner/A-2 on Bail pending enquiry and trial in connection with N.S.C.No. 07 of 2024 arising out of NCB F.NO.48/1/16/2023/NCB/SUB-ZONE/HYD.

¶14

V

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SIVA RAMA KRISHNA KOLLURU, ADVOCATE Counsel for the Respondent : SRI SURESH KUMAR ROUTHU (SPE(J^IAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR NCB) Cour|^|a for the Respondent : THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,^HIGH courtIof A.P. The Court made the following ORDER:

¶16

+-APHC010195502025

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶18

[3521]

¶19

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶20

THURSDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶21

PRESENT

¶22

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4128/2025

¶24

Between:

¶25

BONDALAPATI NAGESHWARA RAO,, S/0. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O.H.NO.4-171, KATEVARAM, TENALI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶26

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶27

AND

¶28

UNION OF INDIA, through Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Hyderabad the Sub-Zone Represented by its Special^Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶29

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused;

¶31

1.SIVA RAMA KRISHNA KOLLURU

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶33

1.SURESH KUMAR ROUTHU (SPL PP FOR NCB)

¶34

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶35

The Court made the following:

¶36

Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4128 of2025 03.07.2025

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (herein after referred to as the BNSS,’), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.2 on bail in NCB F NO.48/1/6/2023/NCB/SUB-ZONE/HYD in N.S.C.No.7 of 2024 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge - cum - I Additional District and Special Judge - Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 27(A), 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act. 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act,’).

¶39

The case advanced by the prosecution is that:

¶40

a. On 05.06.2023, the respondent/complainant received actionable intelligence indicating that four Telugu speaking individuals Viz., (i) B. Nageswara Rao, (ii) Erukala Yadaiah Goud (bespectacled), (iii) Gonepelly Nagaraju, and (iv) Manohar Reddy , aged between 25 and 50 years were allegedly manufacturing a large quantity of Alprazolam at CPR Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., located at Plot No.23-l (Part-1), De-notified Area, Atchutapuram APSEZ. Lalamkoduru (V), Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli District.

¶41

3

¶42

Dr.YLRJ Crl.P.No.4128 of2025 03.07.2025

¶43

b. The information was duly documented and submitted to Shri Sumit Arya, Superintendent, NCB Hyderabad Sub-Zone. Pursuant to his directives, the respondent/complainant, accompanied by two independent witnesses secured via the Tahsildar, Rambilli Mandal, visited the premises and intercepted three persons engaged in packing materials into drums inside the Production Block.

¶44

c. Upon inspection, 119.5 kilograms of light-yellow powder suspected to be Alprazolam was recovered and seized under ‘the NDPS Act’. Equipment allegedly used in the manufacturing process was also seized. The individuals viz., B. Nageswara Rao, Erukala Yadaiah Goud, and Gonepelly Nagaraju were examined under Section 67 of ‘the NDPS Act’ and provided voluntary statements admitting their roles in the manufacture, possession, and intended transportation of the contraband for monetary gain, d. Accordingly, all three were arrested on 06.06.2023 at 1700 hrs, 1715 hrs, and 1730 hrs, respectively, for offences under Section 8(c) read with Sections 22(c), 28, and 29 of ‘the NDPS Act’ (as amended). They were produced before the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yelamanchili on 07.06.2023, remanded to judicial custody, and lodged in Central Prison, Visakhapatnam.

¶45

4

¶46

Dr.YLRJ Crl.P.No.4128 of2025 03.07.2025

¶47

e. Based on the voluntary statement of Accused No.1 it was revealed that co-accused Manohar Reddy also implicated in an NDPS case at RC Puram Police Station had financed Rs.50 lakhs towards the illicit manufacture of the seized Alprazolam. It was further disclosed that in November 2022, Accused No.1 and Manohar Reddy had similarly manufactured approximately⁴⁴ kilograms of Alprazolam using the same modus operandi.

¶48

f. Following discreet verification and location tracing accused Manohar Reddy was examined under Section 67 of ‘the NDPS Act’. He voluntarily admitted to financing the production and transportation of the seized contraband, acknowledged prior attempts to evade law enforcement, and admitted that his actions were financially motivated,

¶49

g. Based on his statement and the incriminating materials,^he was arrested on 23.06.2023 at 1730 hrs for offences under Section 8(c) read with Sections 22(c), 27A, 28, and 29 of ‘the NDPS Act’ (as amended).

¶50

Sri K. Siva Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence, much less the alleged offence. He was falsely implicated in this case and is innocent. He is the sole breadwinner of his family. He undertakes to abide by any

¶51

5

¶52

Dr.YLRJ Crl.P.No.4128 of 2025 03.07.2025

¶53

conditions that this Court may deem fit to impose and accordingly prays for his enlargement on bail.

¶54

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment^ofthe Hon’ble Apex Court in Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha<sup>wherein it was held that prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of ‘the NDPS Act,’. It is important to point out that in that case, the petitioner was in judicial custody for more than three and a half years. Taking into account the prolonged detention in judicial custody^{andtheabsenceof} any adverse antecedents against the petitioner, the Hon’ble Apex Court enlarged the petitioner on bail.

¶55

Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh^, wherein the petitioner was in the judicial custody for more than two years. The Hon’ble Apex Court enlarged the petitioner on bail. recognizing the precious right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶56

1 MANU/SCOR/83201/2023 , 2 MANU/SC/0820/2024

¶57

6

¶58

Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4128 of2025 03.07.2025

¶59

On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), appearing for the respondent, argued that the petitioner was involved in dealing with a huge commercial quantity of alprazolam, amounting to 119.5 kgs. The charge sheet was filed on 29.11.2023. The petitioner, being accused No.2, was manufacturing this alprazolam. This is the third bail application filed by the petitioner, who is a habitual offender. The prosecution has cited only seven witnesses in the charge sheet. The trial is expected to be completed at the earliest. He urged that the bail application be dismissed, as the legislative rigour of Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act,’ squarely applies to this case. It is further argued that against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in favour of accused No.1 an application was filed before this Court to cancel the bail granted to him. That application was disposed of by directing the learned Sessions Judge^tohear the application for releasing the petitioner on bail by following the judgments relied upon by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, and to do so within a stipulated time frame.

¶60

Heard Sri K. Siva Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner: and learned Special Public Prosecutor for Narcotics Central Bureau (NCB), appearing for the respondent. Perused the material available on

¶61

record.

¶62

7

¶63

Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4128 of 2025 03.07.2025

¶64

¶65

Learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on the judgment^ofthe

¶66

High Court of Tripura at Agartala in State of Tripura v. Mijanur

¶67

Rahaman^, wherein paragraph No. 10 reads as follows;

¶68

“10. In the case of Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Mohit Aggarwal, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 891, a three-Judge^Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-

¶69

"14. To sum up, the expression "reasonable grounds"^usedin clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 37 would mean credible, plausible and grounds for the Court to believe^thatthe accused person is not guilty of the alleged offence. For^arriving at any such conclusion, such facts and circumstances^must exist in a case that can persuade the Court to believe^thatthe accused person would not have committed such an offence. Dovetailed with the aforesaid satisfaction is an additional consideration that the accused person is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. ”

¶70

Thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para 18 of^thesaid judgment held that:-

¶71

“18. In our opinion the narrow parameters of bail available under Section 37 of the Act, have not been satisfied^inthefacts of the instant case. At this stage, it is not safe^{toconcludethat} the respondent has successfully demonstrated that there^are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offence alleged against him, for him to have been admitted^to bail. The length of the period of his custody or the^factthatthe charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced^are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent^under Section 37 of the NDPS Act."

¶72

¶73

The judgment of the High Court of Tripura in Narcotics^Control

¶74

Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, is relied on by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for NCB, wherein the application for cancellation of bail granted to the accused was allowed, and the accused^wasdirected to surrender before the learned Sessions Judge.

¶75

^ 2024 see Online Tri 447

¶76

Dr. YLR,J Crt.P.No.4128 of2025 03.07.2025

¶77

Learned Special Public Prosecutor further relied on the order dated 04.12.2024 of this Court i in Crl.P.No.6272 of 2024 (Erukala Yadaiah Goud Girl V. Union of India through Intelligence Officer), wherein this Court, while considering the parameters under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.’ observed that the length of the period of the custody or the fact that the charge sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act,’.

¶78

The second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 29.01.2025 in Crl.P.No.6812 of 2024. There have been no changes of circumstances since the date of the second bail application, which was dismissed as withdrawn. The first bail application was dismissed on 19.04.2024 in Crl.P.No.9302 of 2024 ■ At the time of dismissal of the first bail application, the charge sheet had already been filed. As observed supra, there are no changes In circunrstances from the date of dismissal of the first and second bail applications till the date of dismissal of the present bail application.

¶79

Moreover, it i 's alleged that the petitioner, being accused No.2, was involved in manufacturing alprazolam weighing 119.5 kgs. which constitutes a huge commercial quantity. Taking into account the nature and gravihr of the allegations pgalnst the petitioner, it Is not feasible at

¶80

9

¶81

Dr.YLRJ Crl.P.No.4128 of 2025 03.07.2025

¶82

this juncture to enlarge the petitioner on bail. This Court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence or that he is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

¶83