The Andhra Pradesh High Court granted bail to a woman accused in a 26 kg ganja case, ruling that violations of BNSS 2023 and Article 22(1) during arrest outweigh the strict bail restrictions under the NDPS Act.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
ANDHRA PRADESH: The Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 26 September 2025, heard a case that deals with a bail application under the NDPS Act, 1985. The petitioner, accused of possessing 26 kilograms of ganja, sought bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, citing violation of her fundamental rights during arrest.
Justice Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao analyzed whether failure to communicate the grounds of arrest, as required under Section 47 of BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution, invalidates the strict bail restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Court held that constitutional rights must prevail over procedural rigidity and granted bail to the petitioner with stringent conditions.
ALSO READ: Shocked and Aghast! Human Trafficking in the Name of Surrogacy: Kerala High Court
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Chevvakula Chinnammalu, was arrested by the Rolugunta Police (Anakapalli District) for allegedly possessing and transporting 26 kilograms of ganja, an offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 read with 8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The police seized the contraband, two bikes, and four mobile phones during a vehicle check operation.
She filed a bail application under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking enlargement on bail. This was her second bail petition.
Contentions of the Parties
For the Petitioner (Sri Arrabolu Sai Naveen):
- The counsel argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated and that no prima facie evidence linked her to the alleged offence.
- She was the sole breadwinner of her family, and prolonged incarceration caused hardship.
- It was claimed that the grounds of arrest were not properly communicated, violating Section 47 of the BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
- The petitioner promised full cooperation and undertook not to abscond or influence witnesses.
For the Prosecution:
- The Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, asserting that the investigation was at a crucial stage.
- The State argued that releasing the accused could jeopardize the investigation, influence witnesses, and risk absconding.
- Hence, bail should be denied in light of the serious nature of NDPS offences.
Legal Issue
Whether the petitioner entitled to be enlarged on bail in view of the violation of constitutional and procedural safeguards during arrest?
Court’s Analysis
Justice Dr. Lakshmana Rao emphasized two main legal points:
Violation of Section 47 of BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution:
The Court found that the grounds of arrest were not directly communicated to the petitioner, as required under law and constitutional mandate.
Article 22(1) ensures that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest at the earliest, enabling them to defend themselves and seek bail.
Impact on NDPS Bail Restriction (Section 37 of the NDPS Act):
The Court observed that when a fundamental right is violated, the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes strict conditions for granting bail, cannot be mechanically invoked.
Thus, the Court prioritized constitutional rights over statutory restrictions, balancing justice with liberty.
Decision:
The Court granted bail to the petitioner, holding that the procedural and constitutional violations outweighed the NDPS restrictions.
Bail Conditions Included:
- Bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties.
- Weekly attendance at the police station.
- No travel outside Andhra Pradesh without permission.
- Full cooperation in the investigation.
- No intimidation or contact with witnesses.
- Surrender of passport (or affidavit if none held).
The Court enlarged the petitioner on bail subject to stringent conditions, including execution of the bond, weekly appearance before the Station House Officer, surrender of the passport, and a bar on leaving the State of Andhra Pradesh without permission.
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/accused: Arrabolu Sai Naveen
For the Respondent/complainant: Public Prosecutor
Case Title:
Chevvakula Chinnammalu versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9718/2025
Read Order:
