Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Bondalapati Nageshwara Rao, vs Union Of India on 3 July, 2025
APHC010195502025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4128 OF 2025
Between:
Bondalapati Nageshwara Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Aged 49 years,
R/o.H.No.4-171, Katevaram, Tenali Mandal, Guntur District.
...PETITIONER/A2
AND
Union of India, through Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau,
Hyderabad the Sub-Zone, Represented by its Special Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District.
...RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT
Petition filed under Section 480 & 483 of BNSS, praying that in the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the
High Court may be pleased to direct release of the Petitioner/A-2 on Bail
pending enquiry and trial in connection with N.S.C.No. 07 of 2024 arising out
of NCB F.NO.48/1/16/2023/NCB/SUB-ZONE/HYD.
V
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SIVA RAMA KRISHNA KOLLURU,
ADVOCATE
Counsel for the Respondent : SRI SURESH KUMAR ROUTHU
(SPE(J^IAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR NCB)
Cour|^|a for the Respondent : THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
courtIof A.P.
The Court made the following ORDER:
+-APHC010195502025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4128/2025
Between:
BONDALAPATI NAGESHWARA RAO,, S/0. VENKATESWARLU,
AGED 49 YEARS, R/O.H.NO.4-171, KATEVARAM, TENALI
MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
UNION OF INDIA, through Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control
Bureau, Hyderabad the Sub-Zone Represented by its Special Public
Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur
District.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused;
1.SIVA RAMA KRISHNA KOLLURU
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1.SURESH KUMAR ROUTHU (SPL PP FOR NCB)
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.4128 of2025
03.07.2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (herein after referred to as
the BNSS,’), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.2 on bail in
NCB F NO.48/1/6/2023/NCB/SUB-ZONE/HYD in N.S.C.No.7 of 2024 on
the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge – cum – I Additional
District and Special Judge – Special Judge for Trial of Offences under
NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam, registered for the alleged offences
punishable under Sections 22(c), 27(A), 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs
And Psychotropic Substances Act. 1985 (hereinafter referred
to as ‘the
NDPS Act,’).
2. The case advanced by the prosecution is that:
a. On 05.06.2023, the
respondent/complainant received actionable
intelligence indicating that four Telugu speaking individuals Viz., (i)
B. Nageswara Rao, (ii) Erukala Yadaiah Goud (bespectacled), (iii)
Gonepelly Nagaraju, and (iv) Manohar Reddy , aged between 25
and 50 years
were allegedly manufacturing a large quantity of
Alprazolam at CPR Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., located at Plot No.23-l
(Part-1), De-notified Area, Atchutapuram APSEZ. Lalamkoduru
(V), Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli District.
3
•
Dr.YLRJ
Crl.P.No.4128 of2025
03.07.2025
b. The information was duly documented and submitted to Shri
Sumit Arya, Superintendent, NCB Hyderabad Sub-Zone. Pursuant
to his directives, the respondent/complainant, accompanied by
two independent witnesses secured via the Tahsildar, Rambilli
Mandal, visited the premises and intercepted three persons
engaged in packing materials into drums inside the Production
Block.
c. Upon inspection, 119.5 kilograms of light-yellow powder
suspected to be Alprazolam was recovered and seized under ‘the
NDPS Act‘. Equipment allegedly used in the manufacturing
process was also seized. The individuals viz., B. Nageswara Rao,
Erukala Yadaiah Goud, and Gonepelly Nagaraju were examined
under Section 67 of ‘the NDPS Act‘ and provided voluntary
statements admitting their roles in the manufacture, possession,
and intended transportation of the contraband for monetary gain,
d. Accordingly, all three were arrested on 06.06.2023 at 1700 hrs,
1715 hrs, and 1730 hrs, respectively, for offences under Section
8(c) read with Sections 22(c), 28, and 29 of ‘the NDPS Act‘ (as
amended). They were produced before the learned Additional
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yelamanchili on 07.06.2023,
remanded to judicial custody, and lodged in Central Prison,
Visakhapatnam.
4
Dr.YLRJ
Crl.P.No.4128 of2025
03.07.2025
e. Based on the voluntary statement of Accused No.1 it was
revealed that co-accused Manohar Reddy also implicated in an
NDPS case at RC Puram Police Station had financed Rs.50 lakhs
towards the illicit manufacture of the seized Alprazolam. It was
further disclosed that in November 2022, Accused No.1 and
Manohar Reddy had similarly manufactured approximately 44
kilograms of Alprazolam using the same modus operandi.
f. Following discreet verification and location tracing accused
Manohar Reddy was examined under Section 67 of ‘the NDPS
Act‘. He voluntarily admitted to financing the production and
transportation of the seized contraband, acknowledged prior
attempts to evade law enforcement, and admitted that his actions
were financially motivated,
g. Based on his statement and the incriminating materials, he was
arrested on 23.06.2023 at 1730 hrs for offences under Section
8(c) read with Sections 22(c), 27A, 28, and 29 of ‘the NDPS Act‘
(as amended).
3. Sri K. Siva Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence, much less the
alleged offence. He was falsely implicated in this case and is innocent.
He is the sole breadwinner of his family. He undertakes to abide by any
5
Dr.YLRJ
Crl.P.No.4128 of 2025
03.07.2025
conditions that this Court may deem fit to impose and accordingly prays
for his enlargement on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha\ wherein it was
held that prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most
precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must
override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of ‘the
NDPS Act,’. It is important to point out that in that case, the petitioner was
in judicial custody for more than three and a half years. Taking into
account the prolonged detention in judicial custody and the absence of
any adverse antecedents against the petitioner, the Hon’ble Apex Court
enlarged the petitioner on bail.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the judgment of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya
Pradesh^, wherein the petitioner was in the judicial custody for more than
two years. The Hon’ble Apex Court enlarged the petitioner on bail.
recognizing the precious right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
1 MANU/SCOR/83201/2023 ,
2 MANU/SC/0820/2024
6
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.4128 of2025
03.07.2025
6.
On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the
Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), appearing for the respondent, argued
that the petitioner was involved in dealing with a huge commercial
quantity of alprazolam, amounting to 119.5 kgs. The charge sheet was
filed on 29.11.2023. The petitioner, being accused No.2, was
manufacturing this alprazolam. This is the third bail application filed by
the petitioner, who is a habitual offender. The prosecution has cited only
seven witnesses in the charge sheet. The trial is expected to be
completed at the earliest. He urged that the bail application be dismissed,
as the legislative rigour of Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act,’ squarely applies
to this case. It is further argued that against the order passed by the
learned Sessions Judge in favour of accused No.1 an application was
filed before this Court to cancel the bail granted to him. That application
was disposed of by directing the learned Sessions Judge to hear the
application for releasing the petitioner on bail by following the judgments
relied upon by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, and to do so within
a stipulated time frame.
7. Heard Sri K. Siva Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner:
and learned Special Public Prosecutor for Narcotics Central Bureau
(NCB), appearing for the respondent. Perused the material available on
record.
7
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.4128 of 2025
03.07.2025
8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on the judgment of the
High Court of Tripura at Agartala in State of Tripura v. Mijanur
Rahaman^, wherein paragraph No. 10 reads as follows;
“10. In the case of Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Mohit
Aggarwal, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 891, a three-Judge Bench
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:-
“14. To sum up, the expression “reasonable grounds” used in
clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 37 would mean
credible, plausible and grounds for the Court to believe that the
accused person is not guilty of the alleged offence. For arriving
at any such conclusion, such facts and circumstances must
exist in a case that can persuade the Court to believe that the
accused person would not have committed such an offence.
Dove- tailed with the aforesaid satisfaction is an additional
consideration that the accused person is unlikely to commit any
offence while on bail. ”
Thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para 18 of the said
judgment held that:-
“18. 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.”
9. The judgment of the High Court of Tripura in Narcotics Control
Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, is relied on by the learned Special Public
Prosecutor for NCB, wherein the application for cancellation of bail
granted to the accused was allowed, and the accused was directed to
surrender before the learned Sessions Judge.
^ 2024 see Online Tri 447
Dr. YLR,J
Crt.P.No.4128 of2025
03.07.2025
10.
Learned Special Public Prosecutor further relied on the order dated
04.12.2024 of this Court i
in Crl.P.No.6272 of 2024 (Erukala Yadaiah Goud
Girl V. Union of India through Intelligence Officer), wherein this Court,
while considering the parameters under Section 37 of
the NDPS Act.’
observed that the length of the
period of the 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,’.
11.
The second bail
application was dismissed as withdrawn on
29.01.2025 in Crl.P.No.6812 of 2024. There have been
no changes of
circumstances since the date of the
second bail application, which was
dismissed
as withdrawn. The first bail application was dismissed
on
19.04.2024 in Crl.P.No.9302 of 2024 ■ At the time of dismissal of the
first
bail application, the charge sheet
had already been filed. As observed
supra, there are no changes In circunrstances from the date of dismissal
of the first and
second bail applications till the date of dismissal of the
present bail application.
12.
Moreover, it i
‘s alleged that the petitioner, being accused No.2, was
involved in
manufacturing alprazolam
weighing 119.5 kgs. which
constitutes a huge commercial
quantity. Taking into account the nature
and gravihr of the allegations pgalnst the petitioner, it Is not feasible at
9
Dr.YLRJ
Crl.P.No.4128 of 2025
03.07.2025
this juncture to enlarge the petitioner on bail. This Court is not satisfied
that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not
guilty of the offence or that he is unlikely to commit any offence while on
bail.
13. Hence, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed. SDI- N.NAGAMMA
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To
1. The Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Hyderabad
Sub-Zone, Hyderabad.
2. One CC to Sri Siva Rama Krishna Kolluru, Advocate [OPUC]
3. Two CC’s to Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, Special Public Prosecutor for
NCB [OUT]
4. Two CC’s to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi
[OUT]
5. Two CD Copies
GPC
TAC
high court
DATED; 03/07/2025
ORDER
CRLP NO. 4128 OF 2025
ss
3 g JUL 2025
ntSectioii^^
dismissing this criminal petition