Dismissed¶55

Nakul Singh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bail – NDPS Act

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Mar 2026CRLP/1549/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court (Amaravati), Criminal Petition No. 1549 of 2026, decided 05.03.2026 by Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa: bail denied under Ss. 437/439 Cr.P.C. / Ss. 480, 483 BNSS for NDPS offence (S. 8(c) r/w S. 20(b)(ii)(C)) in Crime No. 210 of 2025, Kirlampudi PS, Kakinada; 24.690 g ganja termed commercial quantity; 85 days custody; 180-day statutory remand period incomplete; relies on Union of India v. Ram Samujh (1999) 9 SCC 429, Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa) (1990) 1 SCC 95, State of Kerala v. Rajesh (2020) 12 SCC 122; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the record, the Court found the petitioner/Accused No.1 was arrested on the spot while in possession of 24.690 grams of ganja and that the seized ganja is a commercial quantity. ¶33

Nakul Singh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner/Accused No.1 should be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No. 210 of 2025 of Kirlampudi Police Station, Kakinada District, registered for offences punishable under S. 8(c) r/w S. 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the record, the Court found the petitioner/Accused No.1 was arrested on the spot while in possession of 24.690 grams of ganja and that the seized ganja is a commercial quantity.

¶33

Key takeaways

The Court took the view that there is no material to presume the petitioner has not committed the offence alleged, and that if enlarged on bail he may commit a similar offence in future; the investigation is at a progressive stage with witnesses yet to be examined.ratio¶33
The statutory period of judicial remand of 180 days had not been completed, and in that connection the Court referred to the cited decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court.ratio¶34
In view of the law laid down in Ram Samujh, Durand Didier and Rajesh, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence, the request for bail cannot be considered and the Criminal Petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — NDPS Act — refusal. Criminal Petition No. 1549 of 2026, filed under Ss. 437/439 Cr.P.C. and Ss. 480/483 BNSS, sought enlargement of the petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime No. 210 of 2025 of Kirlampudi P.S., Kakinada, registered for offences under S. 8(c) r/w S. 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act. The petitioner was arrested on the spot on 10.12.2025 while in possession of 24.690 grams of ganja; the Court held the seized ganja to be a commercial quantity, noted 85 days of judicial custody with the 180-day statutory remand period uncompleted, and found no material to presume the petitioner had not committed the offence, observing a likelihood of committing a similar offence if released. Relying on Union of India v. Ram Samujh (1999) 9 SCC 429, Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa) (1990) 1 SCC 95 and State of Kerala v. Rajesh (2020) 12 SCC 122 on the strictures imposed for bail under the NDPS Act, the Court concluded there were no reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner had not indulged in the alleged offence and dismissed the Criminal Petition. — Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, 05.03.2026.

¶1

¶2

APHC010101522026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3396]

¶6

THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1549/2026

¶10

Between:

¶11

NAKUL SINGH, S/O. JOG SINGH, AGED 30 YEARS, C/O. RAJPUT, R/O. HUKUMPETA, SRI RAMADEVI BOOK STATIONERY, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶12

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, NELAPADU THROUGH THE SHO, KIRLAMPUDI PS., KAKINADA.

¶15

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶16

Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to release the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in connection with Crime No. 210 of 2025 of Kiriampudi P.S., Kakinada

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶18

1.BOPPUDI ALEKHYA

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶20

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

¶23

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1549 OF 2026

¶25

ORDER:-

¶26

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime.No.210 of 2025 of Kirlampudi Police Station, Kakinada District, registered against the Petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

¶27

Heard Ms.Boppudi Alekhya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State. Perused the record.

¶28

The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner and other accused were found in possession of 24.690 grams of ganja on 10.12.2025 and the police arrested the accused and seized the said contraband.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. It is further submit that

¶30

¶31

the petitioner is a sole breadwinner of his family. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner.

¶32

Mr.K.Sandeep, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner was indulged in dealing with 24.690 grams of ganja. The investigation is at nascent stage and urged to dismiss the criminal petition.

¶33

On perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner/Accused No.1 was arrested on the spot while he was in possession of 24.690 grams of ganja. The seized ganja is a commercial quantity. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail. This Court is also of the view that there is no material to presume that the petitioner has not committed the offence alleged, and there is a likelihood that, if enlarged on bail, he may commit a similar offence in future. The investigation is at a progressive stage and some more witnesses are yet to be examined. The petitioner was arrested on 10.12.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 85 days.

¶34

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.

¶35

¶36

8. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh¹ the Hon’ble Supreme Court at

¶37

Paragraph No.7 held as under :

¶38

“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.”

¶39

9. In Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)² the Hon’ble Apex Court at

¶40

Paragraph No.24 held as under:

¶41

“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.”

¶42

10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh³ at Paragraph

¶43

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

¶44

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.

¶45

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

¶46

1 (1999) 9 SCC 429

¶47

2 (1990) 1 SCC 95

¶48

3 (2020) 12 SCC 122

¶49

¶50

accused is not guilty. If either condition is not fulfilled, the bar against granting bail applies.

¶51

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.

¶52

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.

¶53

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Samujh,

¶54

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. There are no merits in the Criminal Petition for grant of bail to the petitioner. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶55