Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Ramesh Nath vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 August, 2025
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6317 of 2025
ORDER:
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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 on bail in
Crime No.VIII/10/24/2023-Customs Preventive Commissionerate,
Vijayawada, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 herein
for the offences punishable under Sections 20 (b) (ii) (C) read with 8(c) of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the
NDPS Act‘).
2. The case of the prosecution is that the Superintendent of Customs
Preventive Commissionerate, Vijayawada got information that the
petitioners were coming to the lane adjacent to St. John’s High School,
Gannavaram in a silver colour car from Visakhapatnam on 12.10.2023
afternoon. Based on the information, the officers of Customs Preventive
Commissionerate, Vijayawada along with independent witnesses,
intercepted the Volkswagen Vento Car bearing registration No.AP 31 BT
9289 and questioned A1 and A2 and taken them into their custody at 3:00
pm on the same day. On search of the car, they found 99 bags containing
ganja totaling 203.306 kgs. On enquiry, A1 and A2 submitted that they
2
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.6317 of 2025
Dated 12.08.2025
purchased the same at Jaggampeta by Raju Ram Chowdary @ Raju Bhai,
who escorted them on a motorcycle and directed them to head towards
Hyderabad and by the time, the petitioners reached to Gannavaram, the
Customs officials took them into their custody. After observing all legal
formalities, they were remanded to judicial custody.
3. Ms. M. Nihitha, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the
petitioners are innocents of the alleged offence and have been falsely
implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioners are the sole
earning members of their family and, therefore, their continued incarceration
would cause undue hardship to their dependents. The petitioners undertake to
strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. As the
petitioners have been in the judicial custody for the past 641 days, the learned
counsel for the petitioners prays that the petition may be allowed in the
interest of justice.
4. Per contra, Smt. Santhi Chandra, Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC,
having filed a detailed counter, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the
petitioners, and argued that the securing the personal appearance of the
petitioners would be difficult if they are enlarged on bail. The accusation
against the petitioners is well founded. A detailed charge sheet was filed. It is
contended that if the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, there is a
strong likelihood that they may abscond, thereby hampering the processes of
3
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.6317 of 2025
Dated 12.08.2025
trial and evading the process of law, and it is urged that the petition may be
dismissed.
5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by
the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Standing
Counsel for CBIC,. I have perused the record.
6. Now, the point for consideration is:
“Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of bail?”.
7. Ms. M.Nikhitha, the learned counsel for the petitioners, relied on the
following judgements. In Narcotic Control Bureau v. Lakhwinder Sing1, the
Hon’ble Apex Court held at paragraph No.7 as under:
“7. At this stage, the learned ASG appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
power of the Court was constrained by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which is
applicable even at the stage of an appeal. He relies upon a decision of this
Court in the case of Dadu v. State of Maharashtra. There is no dispute about
the fact that the Appellate Court is bound by constraints of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act while considering the prayer for the grant of bail during the pendency
of a appeal. However, if, in the facts of the case, an accused has undergone a
substantial part of the substantive sentence and, considering the pendency of
criminal appeals, his appeal is not likely to be heard before the accused
undergoes the entire sentence, the Appellate Court can exercise the power of
releasing the accused on bail pending the appeal. If the relief of bail is denied in
such a factual situation only on the grounds of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it
will amount to the violation of the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.”
8. In Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh2, the Hon’ble Apex
Court held at paragraph No.6 as under:
“6…Now, on examination, the panch witnesses have not supported the case of
prosecution. On facts, we are not inclined to consider the Investigation Officer1
2025 SCC OnLine 366
2
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2730
4
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.6317 of 2025
Dated 12.08.2025as a panch witness. It is to observe that failure to conclude the trial within a
reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates against the
precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, and as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created
under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may, in such circumstances, be
considered.”
9. In Thiyagarajan M v. Union of India3, the High Court of Gauhati Court
held at paragraph No.5 as under:
“5…Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the accused
petitioner was arrested on 08.03.2021 i.e. he has been languishing in judicial
custody for last 4 years. Though the charge was framed on 07.04.2022 but out
of 15 witnesses only 2 witnesses have been examined. If the trial continues in
this manner, then it would take another 5 more years for completion of the trial
and by that time minimum punishment prescribed under the NDPS Act would be
over. It is further submitted that it is the trite law that prolonged incarceration of
under trial and inordinate delay in trial infringes the fundamental rights of the
accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution of India.”
10. In Kulwinder v. State of Punjab4, the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh Court held at paragraph Nos.7.8 as under:
“7.8. The right to a speedy and expeditious trial is not only a vital safeguard to
prevent undue and oppressive incarceration; to mitigate anxiety and concern
accompanying the accusation as well as to curtail any impairment in the ability
of an accused to defend himself, but there is an overarching societal interest
paving way for a speedy trial. This right has been repeatedly actuated in the
recent past and the ratio decidendi of the above-referred to Supreme Court’s
judgments have laid down a series of decisions opening new vistas of
fundamental rights. The concept of speedy trial is amalgamated into the Article
21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty, guaranteed
and preserved under our Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the
actual restraint imposed at the time of the arrest of the accused and consequent
incarceration which continues at all stages, namely, the stage of investigation,
inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible prejudice that may result
due to impermissible and avoidable delay since the time of the commission of
the offence till the criminal proceedings consummate into a finality, could be
averted. The speedy trial, early hearing and quick disposal are sine qua non of
criminal jurisprudence. The overcrowded Court-dockets, the heavy volume of
work and the resultant pressure on the prosecution and the Police, indubitably
keeps the entire criminal jurisprudential mechanism under stress and strain.
However, this cannot be an excuse for keeping the sword of Damocles hanging
on the accused for an indefinite period of time. It does not serve any credit to
the criminal justice system, rather it makes for a sad state of affairs. The
guarantee of a speedy trial is intended to avoid oppression and prevent delayCase No.: Bail Appln./3362/2024
32025 SCC OnLine P&H 94
4
5
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.6317 of 2025
Dated 12.08.2025by imposing on the Court and the prosecution an obligation to proceed with the
trial with a reasonable dispatch. The guarantee serves a three-fold purpose.
Firstly, it protects the accused against oppressive pre-trial imprisonment;
secondly, it relieves the accused of the anxiety and public suspicion due to
unresolved criminal charges and lastly, it protects against the risk that evidence
will be lost or memories dimmed by the passage of time, thus, impairing the
ability of the accused to defend himself. It goes without saying that the
consequences of pre- trial detention are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till
proven otherwise, are subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of
jail-life, usually under onerous conditions. Equally important, the burden of
detention of such an accused frequently falls heavily on the innocent members
of his family. There is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves
consideration at this stage. The allegations in the present case relate to
accused being involved in an FIR relating to commercial quantity of contraband
under the NDPS Act, 1985. While considering a bail petition in a case involving
commercial quantity, the Court has to keep in mind the rigours enumerated
under Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 which mandates that Courts can grant bail
to an accused only after hearing the public prosecutor and after having satisfied
itself of twin conditions which are reasonable grounds for believing that the
accused is not guilty of the offence charged/alleged and that, he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail. The stringent rigours of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act, 1985 must be meticulously scrutinized against the backdrop of
accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial. The right to life and personal
liberty cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted delays in the judicial
process, particularly where such delay(s) is neither attributable to the accused
nor justified at the end of the prosecution by cogent reasons. An individual
cannot be kept behind bars for an inordinate period of time by taking refuge in
rigours laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The legislature in its
wisdom, in order to ensure speedy and timely disposal of the cases under the
Act, has provided for the constitution of special Courts under Section 36-A of
the Act. However, this Court cannot turn Nelson’s eye to the protracted delays
and systematic inefficiency that frustrate this legislative purpose. A Court of law
is duty-bound to ensure that it does not become complicit in violation of an
individual’s fundamental rights, notwithstanding anything contained in a statute.
While dealing with bail petition in a case governed by the rigours of Section 37
of the NDPS Act, 1985, the Court must strike a judicious balance between the
legislative intent to curb the menace of drugs and the sacrosanct right of the
accused to a fair and expeditious trial. Prolonged incarceration, without
justifiable cause, risks transforming pre-trial detention into punitive
imprisonment, an outcome antithetical to the principle of justice and equity.
Ergo, the unequivocal inference is that where the trial has failed to conclude
within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged incarceration, it militates
against the precious fundamental rights of life and liberty granted under the law
and, as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 ought to be considered as per facts of a
given case. In other words, grant of bail in a case pertaining to commercial
quantity, on the ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985.”
6
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.6317 of 2025
Dated 12.08.2025
11. Smt. Santhi Chanda, the learned Senior Counsel for CBIC, relied on the
following judgements. In Narcotic Control Bureau v. Kashif5, the Hon’ble
Apex Court held at paragraph Nos.9 & 10 held as under:
“Compliance with the mandate under Section 37
9. There has been consistent and persistent view of this Court that in the NDPS
cases, where the offence is punishable with minimum sentence of ten years, the
accused shall generally be not released on bail. Negation of bail is the rule and
its grant is an exception. While considering the application for bail, the court has
to bear in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which are
mandatory in nature. The recording of finding as mandated in Section 37 is a
sine qua non for granting bail to the accused involved in the offences under the
said Act.
10. Apart from granting the opportunity of hearing to the Public Prosecutor, the
other two conditions i.e. (i) the satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence, and
that (ii) he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, are the cumulative
and not alternative conditions.”
12. In State of M.P. v. Kajad6, the Hon’ble Apex Court held at paragraph
No.5 held as under:
“5…A perusal of Section 37 of the Act leaves no doubt in the mind of the court
that a person accused of an offence, punishable for a termf of imprisonment of
five years or more, shall generally be not released on bail. Negatifon of bail is
the rule and its grant an exception under sub clause (ii) of clause (b) of Section
37(1)…”
13. The Court in Chipurupalli Dali Naidu v. State of A.P.7, the Hon’ble
Apex Court held at paragraph No.6 held as under:
“6…The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power to grant bail
is also subject to the limitations contained under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. but is
also subject to the limitation placed by Section 37 which commences with non-
obstanate clause…”
5
(2024) 11 SCC 372
6
(2001) 7 SCC 673
7
2020 SCC OnLine AP 966
7
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.6317 of 2025
Dated 12.08.2025
14. In State v. B. Ramu8, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in a case of
recovery of a huge quantity of narcotic substance, the Courts should be slow
in granting even regular bail or anticipatory bail more so when accused is
alleged to have criminal antecedents. In this regard, paragraph Nos.8, 9 & 11,
are extracted hereunder:
“8. Section 37 of the NDPS Act deals with bail to the accused charged in
connection with offence involving commercial quantity of a narcotic drug or
psychotropic substance. The provision is reproduced herein-below for the sake
of ready reference:
“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.
(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 subsection (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.
9. A plain reading of statutory provision makes it abundantly clear that in the
event, the Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for bail either regular or
anticipatory, as the case may be, the Court would have to record a satisfaction
that there are grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence
alleged and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
11. In case of recovery of such a huge quantity of narcotic substance, the
Courts should be slow in granting even regular bail to the accused what to talk
of anticipatory bail more so when the accused is alleged to be having criminal
antecedents.”
2024 SCC OnLine SC 4073
8
8
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.6317 of 2025
Dated 12.08.2025
15. In Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh9, the Hon’ble Apex Court held
that no person accused of offence involving trade in a commercial quantity of
narcotics is entitled to be released on bail unless the Court is satisfied that
there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence.
16. In State of Kerala v. Rajesh10, the Hon’ble Apex Court held at
Paragraph No.19 as under:
“19. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power to grant
bail is not only subject to the limitations contained under Section 439 of the
CrPC, but is also subject to the limitation placed by Section 37 which
commences with non-obstante clause. The operative part of the said section is
in the negative form prescribing the enlargement of bail to any person accused
of commission of an offence under the Act, unless twin conditions are satisfied.
The first condition is that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to
oppose the application; and the second, is that the Court must be satisfied that
there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence.
If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting bail
operates”
17. In Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal11, the Hon’ble Apex
Court held that the length of the period of judicial custody and the fact that the
charge sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves
not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting
relief to the respondent under Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act.’ in that regard, the
relevant paragraph Nos.18 and 19 are extracted hereunder:
“18.Even dehors the confessional statement of the respondent and the other co-
accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which were subsequently
retracted by them, the other circumstantial evidence brought on record by the
appellant-NCB ought to have dissuaded the High Court from exercising its
discretion in favour of the respondent and concluding that there were
reasonable grounds to justify that he was not guilty of such an offence under the
9
2023 SCC OnLine SC 346
10
(2020) 12 SCC 122
11
(2022) 18 SCC 374
9
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.6317 of 2025
Dated 12.08.2025
NDPS Act. We are not persuaded by the submission made by learned counsel
for the respondent and the observation made in the impugned order that since
nothing was found from the possession of the respondent, he is not guilty of the
offence for which he has been charged. Such an assumption would be
premature at this stage.
19. In our opinion the narrow parameters of bail available under Section 37
of the Act, have not been satisfied in the facts of the instant case. At this stage,
it is not safe to conclude that the respondent has successfully demonstrated
that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offence
alleged against him, for him to have been admitted to bail. The length of the
period of his custody or the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the
trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated
as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of
the NDPS Act.”
18. In Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari12, the Hon’ble Apex Court
held that in case of recovery of 400 kgs. of poppy straw from possession of
accused respondent, two conditions to be satisfied under Section 37 of ‘the
NDPS Act.,’ for granting bail: First, the satisfaction of the Court that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that accused not guilty, and second that he
is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. If either of conditions are not
satisfied, the accused cannot be granted bail. In that regard, the relevant
paragraph Nos.6, 7 and 11 are extracted here under:
“6. As the provision itself provides no person shall be granted bail unless
the two conditions are satisfied. They are; the satisfaction of the Court that there
are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and that he is
not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Both the conditions have to be
satisfied. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the bar operates and
the accused cannot be released on bail.
7. The expression used in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) is “reasonable grounds”. The
expression means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes
substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the
offence charged and this reasonable belief contemplated in turn points to
existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to
justify recording of satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the offence
charged.
(2007) 7 SCC 798
12
10
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.6317 of 2025
Dated 12.08.2025
11. The Court while considering the application for bail with reference to
Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for
the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused
on bail that the Court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the
existence of such grounds. But the Court has not to consider the matter as if it
is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty.”
19. In Union of India v. Mohd. Nawaz Khan13, the Hon’ble Apex Court
held that given the seriousness of offences punishable under ‘the NDPS Act.,’
and to curb the menace of drug-trafficking in the country, stringent parameters
for grant of bail under ‘the NDPS Act.,’ have been prescribed.
20. In State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo14, the Hon’ble Apex
Court held at paragraph Nos.5 to 8 as below:
“5. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that in cases
involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances,
while considering the application of bail, the Court is bound to ensure the
satisfaction of conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. The said
provision reads thus: –
“37(1)(b)(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.”
6. While considering the cases under NDPS Act, one cannot be oblivious
of the objects and reasons for bringing the said enactment after repealing the
then existing laws relating to the Narcotic drugs. The object and reasons given
in the acts itself reads thus: –
“An act to consolidate and amend the law relating to narcotic drugs, to make
stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, to provide for the forfeiture of
property derived from, or used in, illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances, to implement the provisions of the International Convention on
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and for matters connected
therewith.”
In the decision in Collector of Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva
Nodira {(2004) 3 SCC 549}, the three judge bench of this Court considered the
(2021) 10 SCC 100
13
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1751
14
11
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.6317 of 2025
Dated 12.08.2025
provisions under Section 37(1)(b) as also 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, with
regard to the expression “reasonable grounds” used therein. This Court held
that it means something more than the prima facie grounds and that it
contemplates substantial and probable causes for believing that the accused is
not guilty of the alleged offence. Furthermore, it was held that the reasonable
belief contemplated in the provision would require existence of such facts and
circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the
accused is not guilty of the alleged offence.
As relates the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act,
viz., that, firstly, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is
not guilty of such offence and, secondly, he is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail it was held therein that they are cumulative and not alternative.
Satisfaction of existence of those twin conditions had to be based on the
‘reasonable grounds’, as referred above.
7. In the decision in State of Kerala and Ors. v. Rajesh and Ors. {(2020) 12
SCC 122}, after reiterating the broad parameters laid down by this Court to be
followed while considering an application for bail moved by an accused involved
in offences under the NDPS Act, in paragraph 18 thereof this Court held that the
scheme of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would reveal that the exercise of power
to grant bail in such cases is not only subject to the limitations contained
under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but also subject to the
limitation placed by Section 37(1)(b)(ii),NDPS Act. Further it was held that in
case one of the two conditions thereunder is not satisfied the ban for granting
bail would operate.
8. Thus, the provisions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act and the
decisions referred supra revealing the consistent view of this Court that while
considering the application for bail made by an accused involved in an offence
under NDPS Act a liberal approach ignoring the mandate under Section 37 of
the NDPS Act is impermissible. Recording a finding mandated under Section
37 of the NDPS Act, which is sine qua non for granting bail to an accused under
the NDPS Act cannot be avoided while passing orders on such applications.”
21. In the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
petitioners therein were undergoing more than two and half years
imprisonment. In Lakhwinder Sing the petitioner therein was undergoing
incarceration for the past four and half years. In Ankur Chaudhary the
petitioner therein was undergoing for more than two and half years. In
Kulwinder the petitioner therein was undergoing for more than two and half
12
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.6317 of 2025
Dated 12.08.2025
years. Hence the judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner
are of no avail at this juncture.
22. In the instance case, as observed supra the petitioners have been
undergoing detention for 641 days only. At this point of time the petitioners are
not entitled for grant of bail. There are no merits in the petition at present.
Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.
23. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the learned XII
Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of cases
under NDPS Act, Vijayawada is directed to complete the trial within a period of
six months and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
_________________________
DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Date: 12.08.2025
KMS/VTS
13
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.6317 of 2025
Dated 12.08.2025
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3878 of 2025
Date: 05.08.2025
KMS