[Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), and 37 — Bail — Non-commercial quantity — Educational background — Bail granted.]
— Petition filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking bail in Crime No. 172 of 2025 of Karapa Police Station, Kakinada, East Godavari District, registered for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985.
— Prosecution case: On 20.09.2025 at about 10:00 A.M., upon receipt of credible information, Sub-Inspector of Police, Karapa Police Station, along with staff and mediators, conducted a raid and found accused Nos.1 to 4 in possession of 3.174 kgs of Ganja, seized from them, and registered the case accordingly.
— Petitioner’s contention: Petitioner (A4) was found with 3.174 kgs of Ganja which is within non-commercial quantity limits; petitioner is a student pursuing II Year BBM course at VSM College, Ramachandrapuram; sought leniency to safeguard his academic future; willing to abide by conditions.
— Public Prosecutor’s contention: Though the seized quantity is within permissible (non-commercial) limits, bail should not be granted mechanically having regard to the gravity of NDPS offences and in view of the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh, (2020) 12 SCC 122.
— Held:
Having regard to the settled law in State of Kerala v. Rajesh (supra) and the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court noted that the rigour of Section 37 applies to offences involving commercial quantity. In the instant case, the seized contraband being of non-commercial quantity, the stringent conditions of Section 37 were not attracted.
— The Court, after hearing both sides and considering that the petitioner is a young student with no previous criminal antecedents, found that there were reasonable grounds to believe that he will not commit any offence if released on bail.
— Bail granted with stringent conditions, inter alia:
Execution of personal bond of ₹20,000 with one surety for like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition & Excise, Kakinada.
Appearance before Station House Officer every Saturday between 10:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. till cognizance is taken.
Not to leave the district without prior permission.
Not to commit any offence or influence witnesses.
To cooperate with investigation and appear whenever required.
— Result: Criminal Petition allowed. Petitioner/Accused No.4 enlarged on bail subject to conditions.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where the quantity of contraband seized is within non-commercial limits, and the accused is a student with no prior criminal record, the Court may, while adhering to Section 37 NDPS Act, exercise its discretion to grant bail with stringent conditions, particularly when reasonable grounds exist to believe that the accused will not commit any offence while on bail.
APHC010513072025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3548]
FRIDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10053/2025
Between:
Nakka Bhaskara Siva Sai Satya, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1.KONA N.D.V.RAMANA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
2025:APHC:41224
ORDER:
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.
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Sri Kona N.D.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioner/accused No.4 contends that the petitioner was having 03.174 kgs
2025:APHC:41224
of Ganja packet and the same is within permissible limits i.e., noncommercial 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.
4. 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.
5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh1
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.
18. 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),
1
(2020) 12 SCC 122
2025:APHC:41224
(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)
19. 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:
24. 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.
8. 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
2025:APHC:41224
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.”
6. For convenience the provisions that are laid down under Section 37
of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985, are
extracted hereunder:
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.”
7. In view of the above mandatory provisions and opportunities provided
to the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner
2025:APHC:41224
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.
8. 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.
2025:APHC:41224
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.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________
TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J
Date: 03.10.2025
SRT/KNN
2025:APHC:41224
10
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10053/2025
03.10.2025
SRT/KNN
2025:APHC:41224
