Mere Procedural Lapse Can't Override NDPS Bar: Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Bail in 200 Kg Ganja Case

“When the Quantity Is Commercial and the Offence Is Grave, Section 37 NDPS Act Must Be Enforced, Not Evaded” — In a significant ruling Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to grant bail to three accused in a 200 kg ganja seizure case, reiterating that “the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not a formality, but a formidable statutory wall that cannot be breached by speculative pleas or procedural quibbles.”

Justice Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, presiding over the bail pleas filed by Gorli Arjuna (A2), Singampalli Durga Prasad (A6) and another accused (A7), held that the petitioners failed to meet the twin mandatory conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and no prejudice was demonstrated to warrant a relaxation of the law’s stringent bail threshold.

“Arrest Memo Shows Communication of Grounds; Mere Absence of Written Note Is Not Fatal” — No Violation of Article 22 or BNSS Proved

The petitioners had primarily relied on alleged procedural violations under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and Section 52 of the NDPS Act, arguing that they were not informed of the grounds of arrest and were produced belatedly before the magistrate. Citing recent Supreme Court decisions including Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, the defence contended that such procedural breach invalidated their custody and entitled them to immediate bail.

However, the Court squarely rejected this submission, holding that “the arrest memos and remand reports reflect communication of reasons for arrest”, and that the petitioners were legally represented from the outset. The Court emphasised that “no demonstrable prejudice has been shown by the petitioners due to any alleged lapse”, and referred to the Supreme Court’s latest ruling in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, which clarified:

“In the absence of demonstrable prejudice, such an irregularity is, at best, a curable defect and cannot, by itself, warrant release on bail.”

The Court further observed, “The petitioners sought bail promptly after arrest, which indicates they were aware of the accusations and were not deprived of any legal recourse.”

“200 Kg of Ganja Is Not a Technicality — The Quantity, the Offence and the Impact Are All Too Real”

Dealing with the core of the case, the Court noted that the petitioners were alleged to be involved in the possession and transportation of 200 kilograms of ganja, a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, and thus triggered the operation of Section 37, which requires the Court to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and will not commit such offences if released on bail.

The Court pointedly remarked:

“The gravity of the offence, its deleterious impact on society, and the legislative intent behind Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for grant of bail, cannot be lightly ignored.”

While A7 had no criminal record, both A2 and A6 were found to have multiple prior NDPS and IPC cases, indicating habitual involvement. The prosecution’s reliance on confessional statements of co-accused, corroborative seizure, and positive chemical analysis were held sufficient to establish a prima facie case at the bail stage.

Referring to State of Kerala v. Rajesh (2020) 12 SCC 122, the Court reiterated:

“The term ‘reasonable grounds’ under Section 37 requires more than mere prima facie satisfaction; it demands substantial, probable causes showing the accused is not guilty.”

The Court rejected the argument that sampling and seizure protocols were defective, holding such matters require trial scrutiny and do not dilute the statutory embargo at the bail stage.

“Law Must Prioritize Societal Harm Over Individual Pleas When Dealing with Narcotic Crimes”

Justice Lakshmana Rao invoked the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ram Samujh and Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa), reminding that narcotics offences, especially involving commercial quantities, are not just crimes against the law, but “crimes against the future of the nation.”

Quoting from Ram Samujh, the Court highlighted: “Narcotics offences destroy numerous vulnerable lives and have a deadly impact on society; offenders involved in drug trafficking pose a continuous hazard and are likely to persist in their illicit activities if released.”

The Court concluded that petitioners A2 and A6, with multiple past offences, could not be trusted to refrain from reoffending, while A7, though without antecedents, failed to discharge the burden under Section 37.

Conclusion: Strict Mandate of Section 37 Prevails; Bail Denied

After a comprehensive review of the statutory framework, case law and factual matrix, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed both bail petitions, holding:

“This Court finds that the petitioners have failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds to believe that they are not guilty of the alleged offences or that they will not commit such offences while on bail... this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners.”

Accordingly, the criminal petitions were dismissed.

Date of Decision: 24th December 2025