Dismissed

Mallela Madhusudhana Reddy Alias Madhu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Feb 2026CRLP/13201/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail sought under BNSS in an NDPS case alleging supply of 19 grams MDMA and 20 LSD blots (commercial quantity) with an adverse antecedent. Applying Supreme Court precedent on Section 37 NDPS restrictions and incomplete statutory remand period, the High Court found no reasonable grounds to believe innocence and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mallela Madhusudhana Reddy Alias Madhu Vs The State… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

[3521]

APHC010692522025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13201/2025

¶10

Between:

¶11

Mallela Madhusudhana Reddy Alias Madhu

¶12

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶13

AND

¶14

The State Of Andhra Pradesh

¶15

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶17

1.P MALLIKHARJUNA RAO

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶19

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶21

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of

¶22

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity 8the BNSS9), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.4 on bail in Crime No.319 of 2025 of Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 herein for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

¶23

Act, 1985 (for brevity 8the NDPS Act9).

¶24

¶25

Sri P. Mallikharjunarao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that

¶26

the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence without there being any cogent or credible material connecting him with the commission of the crime. It is contended that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and that his continued incarceration would cause severe hardship and irreparable prejudice to his dependent family members. . The petitioner is a 24-year-old B.Tech student.

¶27

It is further submitted that the petitioner has a permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of his absconding or evading the process of law. The petitioner is stated to have cooperated with the investigation thus far and undertakes to extend full cooperation in the future as well. It is also urged that the nature of the allegations does not necessitate further custodial interrogation. The learned counsel submits that appropriate conditions may be imposed, and assures that the petitioner will strictly adhere to the same. On these grounds, it is prayed that the bail petition be allowed.

¶28

Per contra, Mr.A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of bail. It is contended that the investigation is still in progress and that several material witnesses are yet to be examined. It is submitted that releasing the petitioner on bail at this stage would adversely affect the investigation and may impede its progress. The prosecution expresses apprehension that, if enlarged on bail, the petitioner may influence or intimidate witnesses and thereby obstruct the course of justice. It is further contended that there exists a reasonable likelihood of the petitioner

¶29

¶30

absconding and evading the due process of law. Having regard to the gravity and seriousness of the allegations, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail and prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶31

Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.

¶32

In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is:

¶33

<Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?=

¶34

As seen from the record, the petitioner/Accused No.4 is alleged to have been involved in the supply of 19 grams of MDMA and 20 LSD blots, both of which constitute commercial quantity. There is one adverse antecedent reported against the petitioner in Crime No.279 of 2023 under the provisions of 8the NDPS Act.,9 in the State of Telangana. The petitioner was arrested on 12.11.2025 and has been in judicial custody for the past 91 days.

¶35

It is specifically alleged that the petitioner was found in possession of

¶36

1.07 grams of MDMA and was arrested on the spot. There were certain PhonePe transactions between the petitioner and the other accused. The call data records also indicate communication between the petitioner and the co-accused. In view of the allegations, Section 29 of 8the NDPS Act.,9 would squarely apply to the case on hand. On perusal of the entire record,

¶37

¶38

it appears that the investigation is still in progress and that some material witnesses are yet to be examined.

¶39

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.

¶40

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

¶41

Paragraph No.7 held as under :

¶42

<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.=

¶43

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

¶44

Paragraph No.24 held as under:

¶45

<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.=

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

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.

¶49

1 (1999) 9 SCC 429

¶50

2 (1990) 1 SCC 95

¶51

3 (2020) 12 SCC 122

¶52

¶53

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.

¶54

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.

¶55

In view of the law laid down by the Hon9ble Apex Court in Ram Samujh, Durand Didier and Rajesh 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.

¶56