High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 480 and 483 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the l/lemorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Crrme No 77 oi 2024 daled 2510312024 of PS Kothur, Cyberabad, Telangana for the offences under Section 8 (C) R/w 22 (c)' 29 of NDPS Act '1985 This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P VIDHYADHAR GOUD ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Addl' Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent The Court made the following: ORDER \ ) I .! THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.75 of 2025 ORDER: The pre,sent Criminal Petition is hled praying this; Court to enlargr: t}-re petitioner who is arrayed as accrtsed I'1o.6 in Crime No.7l' of 2024 in Kothur Poiice Station, Cyberabad Commissione rate, registered for the offences pun Lshable r-rnder Sections 8c read wtLl;, 22(cl and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs And F'sychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on bail.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.03.2O2'1, Sub Inspector G Srinivas received credible information ab('ut two individuals sclling governmentbanned Alprazolam near Theegapu r village. He immediately informed his s'rperior officer, called the Clues team, and made a GD entry Along with his 1,earrr, he went to Vijayalaxmi ChourstheL, where they apprehendecl three persons - Bontha Sudhakar, Male Anil Kumar, and .,\mu1a Sharath Babu Goud and seized 1.03 kg of Alprazolarn, a blue Swift car, and mobile phones usecl in the rllegal bu sin e ss. During interrogation, the accused rr:vealed I I I I l t I i 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.75 of2025 that they had been purchasing Alprazolam from Ramesh in Kollapur village and selling it to toddy shops at a higher price.

3. Heard Sri P. Vidhyadhar Goud, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the arrest of as the petitioner was solely based on the confession statements of Accused No.4 and 5, which hold no evidentiary value and that the petitioner had no contraband in his possession and was not involved in the comrnission of the crime. He further submitted that a review of the remand case diary and FIR reveals no mention of the petitioner and no specific overt acts attributed to them. He contended that the petitioner has no prior criminai record, is a law-abiding citrzen, and has no connection to the other accused- He further contended that the investigation is completed and accused Nos. I to 5 already granted bail and that the petitioner suffers from severe health ailments, including liver pyrosis, and requires constant medical care. Therefore, he prayed the r1 I I -.'.^, 3 sI(s,J Crl.P.No.? 5 of 2025 Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this c riminal petrtlon.

5. On thr: other hand, learned Additional Public Prorsecutor opposed r-he submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the allegations leveled agairLst the petitioner are of serious nature as he was allege:dly in possessicn cf 1.03 kg of Aiprazolam, which is; com:rercial quantity. Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going throug)-r the material placed on record, it is not 3d that the limited qrievance of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petltioner was falsely implicated in thc r:ase ar-rd that he is no wa)' concerned with the alleged offence, whererrs, it is the specific s[and of learned Additionai Public Prcsecutor that

1.O3 kg of A.lprazolam was seized from the petitioner.

7. At thi,s stage, it is imperative to note that the contraband seized from the petitioner is a com rrercial l l l l i I i 4 SI(s,.J Crl.P. o-75 of 2025 quaJrtity. That being so, it is relevant to extract Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under: "37. Offences to be cogrrizable and non- bailable. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3 {2 of 7974),--lal every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for 1[offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A ald also for offences involving commercial quantityl sha1l be released on bail or on iris own bond unless-- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satished that there are reasonable grounds for belienng tltat he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specifred in clause (b) of sub section (1) are in addition II i 5 sKs,J Crl.P.r{o.75 of 2O25 to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Pro,:edure, 7973 (2 of 19741 or any other lau. for ',he time being in force on granting of bail."

8. In vieu' thereof, it is clear that Section 37 of th': NDPS Act manilatcs that offences involving commercial quanl.ities be non-bailzrbkr, requiring reasonable grounds to belrt:ve the accused is n,rt guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail, Given the serious allegations against the petitioner', eu'rd the fact that he is the prime accLrsr:d, this Court is noi satished that conditions for granting baiI under Section '.)7 are met. Therefore, the criminal petitiol lacks merit ancl rhr: same is liable to tre dismissed.

9. Acr:or<1ing1y, this Criminal Petition is dismissed Miscellraneous applications, if any pending, shal1 stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/. V. HARI PRASAD ASSI TANt REGISTRAR /i', \) SECTION OFFICER '.J

1. The Prirrc'pal .ludicial First Class Magistrate at Shadnagar 2. The Station House Officer, P.S Kothur, Cyberabad. 3. Two CC to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telargana, at Hyderabad (OUT) 4 One CC to Slll P VIDHYADHAR GOUD Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD Cooies y'r4- , I /' HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 ORDER CRLP.No.75 of 2025 --'4 " --'-1,_::-- 2 6 rqnn l/ME I ,t '4 '\.: : ,,'.1 a1- i_1l )+ DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION (t- \3 2 -()