ORDER : Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. The Criminal Petition Nos.10314 & 10677 of 2025 are heard and disposed of by way of this common order, as they arise out of one crime, albeit Petitioners are different. 2. Criminal Petitions have been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023[the BNSS], seeking to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 & 6 on bail in Cr.No.366 of 2025 of Vedayapalem Police Station, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 & 6 herein for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985[the NDPS Act] (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 3. The allegations against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 & 6 are that they were indulged in Ganja business and they were found in possession and transportation of 23.470 Kgs of Ganja, which is a commercial quantity. The alleged ganja was seized in the dicky of Toyota Glanza car, which was driven by Accused No.4. The car belongs to the uncle of Accused No.4. They were altogether six persons in the car. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, and that there is no prima facie material or cogent evidence connecting the Petitioners to the commission of the crime. It is further contended that the Petitioners are the sole earning members of their families and that their incarceration would result in grave hardship and irreparable prejudice to their dependents. The Petitioners undertake to comply with any condition that this Court may deem it fit and proper to impose while considering the prayer for grant of bail. 5. It is further submitted that the Petitioners are permanent residents of Nellore District and there exists no apprehension of their absconding or evading the due process of law. The Petitioners have extended full cooperation in the course of investigation and undertake to continue such cooperation in all future proceedings. Hence, it is urged to allow the petition. 6. Smt. Y.L.Siva Kalpana Reddy, learned Counsel for Accused No.2 and Mr. The Petitioners have extended full cooperation in the course of investigation and undertake to continue such cooperation in all future proceedings. Hence, it is urged to allow the petition. 6. Smt. Y.L.Siva Kalpana Reddy, learned Counsel for Accused No.2 and Mr. Malireddy Gowtham, learned Counsel for Accused Nos.1, 3, 4 & 6 vehemently further argued that the Petitioners were taken into illegal custody by the Task Force Police of Nellore on 29.08.2025 and they were illegally detained for a period of seven days and they were badly beaten by the Police. They were shown arrested on 05.09.2025. They were remanded to judicial custody on 06.09.2025. Thus, they were nearly 59 days in the judicial custody and 7 days in the illegal custody of Police enduring torture. It is further submitted that mere pendency of adverse criminal antecedents is not a sole ground to deny the request for grant of bail, by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. , (2020) 11 SCC 648 . 7. The Accused No.2, when produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate for sending him to judicial remand, he gave a statement to the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate and that statement was recorded as a sworn statement, in which he categorically deposed before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate that he was arrested on 29.08.2025 and took him to the house of Accused No.1 on being led by him. Later, five police personnel from Task Force came and beat him on the soles of his foot. As a result, he got swelling injuries. He was unable to move. He was given treatment by one Registered Medical Practitioner (RMP) Doctor and later taken him to hospital by showing him as a Accused in Ganja case. Accused Nos. 1, 3 & 6 were illegally arrested on 29.08.2025; Accused No.4 was arrested on 30.08.2025. 8. Learned Counsel for Accused Nos.1, 3, 4 & 6 relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal , (2022) 18 SCC 374 wherein at paragraph Nos.12 to 15 it is held as under: “12. The expression “reasonable grounds” has come up for discussion in several rulings of this Court. 8. Learned Counsel for Accused Nos.1, 3, 4 & 6 relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal , (2022) 18 SCC 374 wherein at paragraph Nos.12 to 15 it is held as under: “12. The expression “reasonable grounds” has come up for discussion in several rulings of this Court. In Collector of Customs v. Ahmadalieva Nodira [Collector of Customs v. Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 834] , a decision rendered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court, it has been held thus: (SCCp. 552, para7) “7. The limitations on granting of bail come in only when the question of granting bail arises on merits. Apart from the grant of opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, the other twin conditions which really have relevance so far as the present respondent-accused is concerned, are: the satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The conditions are cumulative and not alternative. The satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty has to be based on reasonable grounds. The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence.” (emphasis supplied) 13. The expression “reasonable ground” came up for discussion in State of Kerala v. Rajesh [State of Kerala v. Rajesh, (2020) 12 SCC 122 : (2020) 4 SCC (Cri) 147] and this Court has observed as below : (SCC p. 129, para 20) “20. The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 that in addition to the limitations provided under CrPC, or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for.” (emphasis supplied) 14. To sum up, the expression “reasonable grounds” used in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 would mean credible and plausible 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. Dovetailed with the aforesaid satisfaction is an additional consideration that the accused person is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. 15. We may clarify that at the stage of examining an application for bail in the context of Section 37 of the Act, the court is not required to record a finding that the accused person is not guilty. The court is also not expected to weigh the evidence for arriving at a finding as to whether the accused has committed an offence under the NDPS Act or not. The entire exercise that the court is expected to undertake at this stage is for the limited purpose of releasing him on bail. Thus, the focus is on the availability of reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences that he has been charged with and he is unlikely to commit an offence under the Act while on bail.” 9. Thus, the focus is on the availability of reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences that he has been charged with and he is unlikely to commit an offence under the Act while on bail.” 9. Whether the Petitioners were taken to the illegal custody for seven days prior to their actual arrest and they were subjected to torture by the Police is a question of fact and it is a matter of trial and further inquiries under the provisions of the Human Rights Act, 1993, before the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, who is a designated and competent Court for dealing with the arrest and violation of human rights. Of course, learned Jurisdictional Magistrate may also take proper action against errant police officials under the provisions of ‘the BNS’ and ‘the BNSS’ also. Arrest and seizure mahazarnama was prepared in the presence of one T.V.M.Krishna Prasad, who is Tahsildar-cum-Mandal Executive Magistrate of Nellore Rural (a Gazetted Officer) and Village Revenue Officer. 10. There are several cases pending against the Petitioners. Against Petitioner/Accused No.1 there is one case in Crime No.23/2013 in Balaji Nagar Police Station under Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.’ Against Accused No.3 there are five criminal cases – Crime No.279/2020 under Sections 448, 324 read with 34 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ in Santhapet Police Station; Crime No.34/2021 under Section 110(E) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ in Santhapet Police Station; Crime No.83/2022 under Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ in Balaji Nagar Police Station; Crime No.129/2024 under Sections 109(1), 127(1) read with 3(5) of ‘the BNS’ of Chinnabazar Police Station; Crime No.131/2025 under Sections 115(2), 292, 351(2) of ‘the BNS’ in Balaji Nagar Police Station. Against Accused No.4 there are three criminal cases – Crime No.196/2017 under Sections 148, 149, 324, 354, 452 & 506 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ in Chinnabazar Police Station; Crime No.393/2022 under Sections 302 read with 34 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ in Dargamitta Police Station; Crime No.267/2023 under Section 110(E) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ in Chinnabazar Police Station. 11. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submit that a video was taken about two months ago prior to the arrest of the Petitioners wherein Accused No.3 who was inebriated condition in a lodge in Madras bus stand, Nellore, had a conversation that if they kill the sitting MLA by name Kotamreddy Sridhar Reddy, they would get a lot of money. 11. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submit that a video was taken about two months ago prior to the arrest of the Petitioners wherein Accused No.3 who was inebriated condition in a lodge in Madras bus stand, Nellore, had a conversation that if they kill the sitting MLA by name Kotamreddy Sridhar Reddy, they would get a lot of money. The video was uploaded in Youtube and went viral. Later, based on that video, the police identified eight persons and booked the instant case against them illegally implicating them under the provisions of ‘the NDPS Act.’ 12. Even assuming for a moment for argument sake, without admitting it as true, the Petitioners were taken into illegal custody on 29.08.2025 or on 30.08.2025, none of the relatives of the Petitioners have moved any petition(s) by way of writ of habeas corpus before this Court in violation to the instant case. Further, the Petitioners’ relatives/kith and kin have also not approached the learned Jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate concerned for production of the Petitioners before the learned Judicial Magistrate by way of filing appropriate petition under the provisions of ‘the BNSS’ seeking their production from the alleged illegal custody of police. Be that as it may, the investigation is at progressive stage. Enlarging the Petitioners on bail at this juncture would not augur well to the progress of the investigation. Hence, the request of the Petitioners for the present is rejected. 13. In the result, the Criminal Petitions are dismissed.