Nakka Bhaskara Siva Sai Satya vs State Of Andhra Pradesh

Tuhin Kumar Gedela, J

Heard,

Sri Kona N.D.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.4 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent-State.

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.4 on bail in Crime.No.172 of 2025 of Karapa Police Station, Kakinada, East Godavari District, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.4 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The case of the prosecution is that on 20.09.2025 at about 10:00 A.M., on receipt of credible information regarding illegal transportation of ganja, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Karapa Police Station, along with staff and mediators, conducted a raid and found the accused Nos.1 to 4 in possession of Ganja and seized the contraband of 03.174 kgs of Ganja in a plastic bag from the accused. After recording the confessional statements, the Police registered a case in Cr.No.172 of 2025 against the accused and arrested them. Hence the FIR.

Sri Kona N.D.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.4 contends that the petitioner was having 03.174 kgs of Ganja packet and the same is within permissible limits i.e., non-commercial quantity. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.4 also contended that the petitioner is a student and is pursuing II year of BBM Course at VSM College, Ramachandrapuram. He further invited this Court to impose conditions, so that the future of the petitioner may not be put to prejudice. In the light of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice.

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that though the quantity of the contraband seized is within the permissible limits, the offence which is related to the present crime cannot be omitted as per the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh and requested to dismiss the present Criminal Petition.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh (2020) 12 SCC 122 held as follows:

“17. It may be noticed that Hashish oil is shown at Sl. No. 13 in the notification dated 19th October, 2001 issued by the Central Government in exercise of power under Section 2(viia) and (xxiiia) of the NDPS Act. Hashish oil above 1 kg is commercial quantity.

The jurisdiction of the Court to grant bail is circumscribed by the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It can be granted in case there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offence, and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is the mandate of the legislature which is required to be followed. At this juncture, a reference to Section 37 of the Act is apposite. That provision makes the offences under the Act cognizable and non−bailable. It reads thus:− 37. Offences to be cognizable and non−bailable.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for [offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub−section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. (emphasis supplied)

This Court has laid down broad parameters to be followed while considering the application for bail moved by the accused involved in offences under NDPS Act. In Union of India Vs. Ram Samujh and Ors. 1999(9) SCC 429, it has been elaborated as under:− 7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is required to be adhered to and followed. It should be borne in mind that in a murder case, the accused commits murder of one or two persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instrumental in causing death or in inflicting death−blow to a number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable; it causes deleterious effects and a deadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the society; even if they are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue their nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicants clandestinely. Reason may be large stake and illegal profit involved. This Court, dealing with the contention with regard to punishment under the NDPS Act, has succinctly observed about the adverse effect of such activities in Durand Didier v. Chief Secy., Union Territory of Goa [(1990) 1 SCC 95)] as under:

With deep concern, we may point out that the organised activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have led to drug addiction among a sizeable section of the public, particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes and the menace has assumed serious and alarming proportions in the recent years. Therefore, in order to effectively control and eradicate this proliferating and booming devastating menace, causing deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society as a whole, Parliament in its wisdom, has made effective provisions by introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory minimum imprisonment and fine.

To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market, Parliament has provided that the person accused of offences under the NDPS Act should not be released on bail during trial unless the mandatory conditions provided in Section 37, namely,

(i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence; and

(ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail are satisfied. The High Court has not given any justifiable reason for not abiding by the aforesaid mandate while ordering the release of the respondent−accused on bail. Instead of attempting to take a holistic view of the harmful socio− economic consequences and health hazards which would accompany trafficking illegally in dangerous drugs, the court should implement the law in the spirit with which Parliament, after due deliberation, has amended.”

For convenience the provisions that are laid down under Section 37 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985, are extracted hereunder:

Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.—

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),—

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for [offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless—

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.”

In view of the above mandatory provisions and opportunities provided to the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner will not commit any offence, if he is released on bail, much less, taking into consideration the academic career of the petitioner. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor that there are no other cases of NDPS or any other Criminal Cases that are pending against the petitioner/accused No.4.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.4 on bail with the following stringent conditions:

i. The petitioner/Accused No.4 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition & Excise, Kakinada.

ii. The petitioner/Accused No.4 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned Trial Court.

iii. The petitioner/Accused No.4 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned.

iv. The petitioner/Accused No.4 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future.

v. The petitioner/Accused No.4 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required.

vi. The petitioner/Accused No.4 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.