Dismissed¶46

Yerramilli Naga Veera Siva alias Siva v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Mar 2026CRLP/1658/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail refused under Section 37 NDPS Act bar; 200 kg Ganja commercial quantity; Crime No.208 of 2025, Payakaraopeta Police Station, Alluri Sitharamaraju District; Sections 480 and 483 BNSS; Section 111(2)(b) BNS; Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 29 r/w 8(C) NDPS Act; seizure valued about Rs.3,73,000/-; judicial custody since arrest on 18.08.2025; statutory 180-day period expired, extension granted, charge-sheet not filed; reliance on State of Kerala v. Rajesh, (2020) 12 SCC 122; Criminal Petition No.1658/2026 dismissed on 09.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

None — regular bail denied to Accused Nos.3 and 4; Criminal Petition dismissed and pending miscellaneous applications closed. ¶46

Yerramilli Naga Veera Siva alias Siva Vs The State… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — regular bail denied to Accused Nos.3 and 4; Criminal Petition dismissed and pending miscellaneous applications closed.

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4, in judicial custody since arrest on 18.08.2025, in Crime No.208 of 2025 involving 200 kg of Ganja. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

There are no merits in the Criminal Petition for grant of bail; it is liable to be dismissed.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

There are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners have not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence; hence their request for bail cannot be considered at this juncture.

¶44

Key takeaways

The court found no basis to conclude that, if released on bail, the petitioners would not commit similar offences in future; the second Section 37 condition is likewise unfulfilled.ratio¶44
In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed and miscellaneous applications, if any, pending therein stand closed.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa), Criminal Petition No.1658/2026, decided 09.03.2026 — DISMISSED. Accused Nos.3 and 4 (Yerramilli Naga Veera Siva alias Siva and Kolia Naga Sateesh), in judicial custody since arrest on 18.08.2025, sought regular bail under Sections 480 and 483 BNSS in Crime No.208 of 2025 (Payakaraopeta Police Station, Alluri Sitharamaraju District), registered under Section 111(2)(b) BNS and Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 29 read with 8(C) of the NDPS Act, after interception of a vehicle on NH-16 carrying about 200 KGs of semi-dry Ganja (commercial quantity) seized, with four mobile phones, Rs.3,000/- cash and a Mahindra XUV 500 car, worth about Rs.3,73,000/-, under Sections 20(b)(i)(C) and 29(1) r/w 8(c) NDPS Act. Charge-sheet not filed; statutory 180-day period had expired and extension of time had been granted to the investigating officer. Applying State of Kerala v. Rajesh, (2020) 12 SCC 122 (paras 8, 19–21) on the overriding twin conditions of Section 37 NDPS Act, the court found no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners had not committed the alleged offence or that they would not commit similar offences if released, and dismissed the petition.

[3396]

APHC010108732026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

MONDA Y , THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO T HOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1658/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

YERRAMILLI NAGA VEERA SIVA ALIAS SIVA, S/O. R A JU ALIAS KONDA RAJU, A G ED ABOUT 38 YEARS,R/O. D.N O .4-307/A, BHASKAR COLON Y ,G. RANGAMPETA VILLAGE, PED D APURAM MANDAL,KAKINADA DISTRICT, A.P.

¶11

KOLIA NAGA SAT E ESH, S/O. ESWARUDU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,R/O. D H ENEKULAVARI VEEDHI, SIRIPURAM VILLAGE,YELESWA R AM MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, A .P.

¶12

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Cour t of Andhra Pradesh.

¶15

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶16

Petition under Sectio n 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 52 8 of BNSS praying that in the circum s tances stated in the Memorandum of G rounds of Criminal Petition, the High CourtPleased to enlarge the Petition e rs/Accused No.3, 4 on bail pending d isposal of Crime No. 208/2025 of Pa y akaraopeta P.S., Anakapalli District an d to pass

¶17

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶19

1.GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶21

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

¶24

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1658/2026

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, has been filed by the petitioners herein/Accused Nos.3 and 4, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.208 of 2025 on the file of Payakaraopeta Police Station, Alluri Sitharamaraju District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 111(2)(b) BNS and Section 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 29 read with 8(C) of the NDPS Act.

¶27

The case of prosecution in brief is that, on credible information, the SubInspector of Payakaraopeta Police Station along with staff conducted vehicle checking on NH-16 Road at the outskirts of Seethamapuram Village, Payakaraopeta Mandal. During the checking, a car coming from Nakkapalli road tried to escape on seeing the police. The SI stopped the vehicle and apprehended A-1 Baipureddy Ratnam, A-3 Yerramilli Naga Veera Siva @ Siva and A-4 Kolla Naga Sateesh. On verification of the vehicle, four gunny bags containing about 200 KGs of Ganja in semi-dry condition were found behind the rear seat. The accused admitted that they were illegally transporting the Ganja. The police seized the contraband along with four mobile phones, cash of Rs.3,000/- and one Mahindra XUV 500 car, all worth

¶28

¶29

about Rs.3,73,000/-, under Sections 20(b)(i)(C) and 29(1) r/w 8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. A-2 Gorli Gangu Naidu is yet to be arrested and investigation is in progress.

¶30

Heard Sri G.Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were arrested on 18.08.2025, since then, they have been in judicial custody. He would further submit that the petitioner are innocent and the petitioners are ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners finally prays for grant of bail to the petitioners by imposing any conditions.

¶32

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is not yet completed. The quantity of contraband involved in present crime is 200 Kgs of Ganja, which is a commercial quantity. Inventory is also not completed. The Statutory period of 180 days is over, charge-sheet is not filed but the investigating officer has filed a petition seeking extension of time to conclude the investigation and the same was allowed. As time granted to the investigating officer to conclude the investigation and the contraband involved

¶33

¶34

in this matter is huge commercial quantity of 200 kgs, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the petition in the light of the bar under Section 37 of NDPS Act.

¶35

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh¹ at Paragraph Nos.8, 19, 20 and 21 held as under:

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the request of the petitioners

¶41

cannot be considered at this juncture inasmuch as there are no reasonable

¶42

1 (2020) 12 SCC 122

¶43

¶44

grounds to believe that the petitioners have not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence and if the petitioners are released on bail they would not commit similar offence in future. There are no merits in the Criminal Petition for grant of bail to the petitioners. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶45