The High Court of Andhra Pradesh recently granted bail to an individual accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), holding that a violation of the fundamental right to be informed of the grounds of arrest, as enshrined in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, negates the stringent conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The order was passed by the Hon’ble Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao in a criminal petition filed by Chevvakula Chinnammalu.
The court enlarged the petitioner on bail in Crime No. 30 of 2025 of Rolugunta Police Station, Anakapalli District. The petitioner was accused of offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution’s case, on April 21, 2025, at approximately 10:00 AM, the Sub-Inspector of Police of Rolugunta, along with staff and mediators, was conducting vehicle checks near Kanchugummala Junction. They apprehended four individuals on two motorcycles who were attempting to escape. The individuals were found carrying white PVC bags containing a total of 26 KGs of ganja, valued at Rs. 1,30,000/-.
The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, Accused No. 1, had purchased the ganja from Accused No. 2 and was transporting it with the assistance of Accused Nos. 3 and 4, whom she had allegedly offered 1 KG of the substance each for their personal consumption. The police seized the ganja, two motorcycles, and four mobile phones, and took all four accused into custody. The petitioner had been in judicial custody for 156 days prior to the filing of the current bail application, which was her second attempt.
Arguments of the Parties
Sri Arrabolu Sai Naveen, counsel for the petitioner, argued that his client was innocent and had been falsely implicated. He contended that there was no prima facie material connecting the petitioner to the crime and that her continued incarceration would cause grave hardship to her dependents, as she is the sole earning member of her family. Crucially, the counsel submitted that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the petitioner, in violation of the mandate under Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). He assured the court that the petitioner, a permanent resident of Anakapalli, posed no flight risk and would cooperate fully with the investigation.
Opposing the bail plea, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, argued vehemently that the investigation was at a critical stage. She submitted that releasing the petitioner “would be inimical to the sanctity and efficacy of the ongoing investigative process.” The prosecution expressed a strong apprehension that the petitioner might influence or intimidate witnesses and abscond, thereby frustrating the due process of law.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
After considering the submissions from both sides, Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao identified the pivotal issue as: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?”
The Court noted that the core of the petitioner’s argument rested on the non-communication of the grounds of arrest, a right guaranteed under Section 47 of the BNSS and, more fundamentally, under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The judgment observed that while the police documentation claimed the grounds were communicated to the petitioner through her relatives, this did not satisfy the constitutional and statutory mandate.
The Court emphasized the importance of this right, stating, “Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India also mandates that as soon as an accused person is arrested, the grounds of arrest shall be communicated in writing, enabling the accused to prepare a defence and to seek bail. It is a fundamental right of any citizen to be informed of the grounds of arrest at the earliest.”
Finding a “clear violation of Section 47 of ‘the BNSS.,’ and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India,” the Court delivered its key legal conclusion. It held, “When such a fundamental right is violated, the rigor of Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act.,’ cannot be applied rather invoked.”
Consequently, the High Court allowed the criminal petition and enlarged the petitioner on bail, subject to several stringent conditions. These include executing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties, appearing before the Station House Officer every Saturday, not leaving the state without permission, cooperating with the investigation, and surrendering her passport.
