The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 480 and 483 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No. '16212024, dt. 02.11.2024 U/s. B(C) R/w. 2o(b)(ii)(C), 27A and 29 Of NDPS Act and 78 JJ Act on the file of the Sujathanagar Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem. This Petition coming on for hearing. upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R MANGULAL, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Syed Yasar Manoon, Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent-state. The Court made the following: ORDER .' THE HONOT'RABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITIOIT IIo.257 of 2o25 ORAL ORDER: Seeking ttre Court to enlarge ttre petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.4 in Crime No.162 of 2024 of Sujathanagar Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem, on bail, the present Criminal Petition is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on O2.11.2024, t)te Sujathanagar Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem seized the contraband as the accused persons are buying and selling the contraband illegally to the general public in order to earn money in an ease manner and also registered a case vide Crime No. 162 of 2024 of Sujathanagar Police Station, Bhadradri Kottragudem, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C) read with 2ObXiiXCl,27A,29 of NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 78 ofJJ Act.

3. Heard Sri R.Mangulal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Syed Yasar Manoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-Sta.te. z sxs, J Crl-P -Xo.257 of 2025

4. Iearned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he is no way concerned with the alleged offences and material part of the investigatj.,on is completed. He is seoondJy submitted tJ:at the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 10.1 I.2O24, causing undue hardship to their family and that the allegations are false and fabricated. He lastlg submitted that previously, bail application of the petitioner, uide Crl.M.P.No. 1052 of 2024, was dismissed by the Special Sessions Judge for the Trial of Cases under NDPS Act - Cum - I Additional Sessions Judge, Kothagudem, on 03.12.2O24, without valid reasons. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Pa[ulabid Ahmad Arimuttar. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the contraband seized 83.595 kgs of dry ganja, which is in commercial quantity and also the ' 120221 12 supreme court c^as€s 633 I I 3 sxs, J c"l-P.xo.257 of 2O2S investigation is not yet completed, therefore, granting bail to ttre petitioner, at this stage, does not arise- Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. Having regard to tlle rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that previously the petitioner had frled Crl.P.No. 15312 of 2024 before this Court, seeking the relief of grant of bail and the sarne was dismissed uide order dated 26.12.2O24 observing tlrat 'it is apparent tlnt tLe antraband inuohted in fhis case is 83.595 kgs of dry ganjo., rtthich i's in ammercjal qntrtitg ' It i's pertinent to note tlat major part of tte inuestQation i's not get ampleted. Hence, ansidering the fads and ciranm-stances of the case, this Court i-s of the onsidered opinian that the petitioner/ acansed No.S is not entltled for the bail and the Criminat petition is liable to be di.smissed'' However, it is noticed that there are no changed circumstances back then in the earlier bail petition, and the present bail petition'

7. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in llarcotics Control Bureau (supra), stating that when no recovery is made from the accused, they are entitled to bail. However, the g\ 4 sKs, J CrLP.ro.257 of 2025 a remand report reveals that the Police recovered ganja from the petitioner in the presence of witnesses i.e., L.Ws. 13 and 14. The allegations a€ainst the petitioner are that he knowingly arranged a caf for transporting ganja.

8. At this stage, it is pertinent to note Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under: '37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminaf Procedure, 1973 (2 ot p7al,--la) every o{Ience punishable under this Act sha-ll b€ cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for l[offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27 A and also for o{Iences involving commercial quantityl shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-- (i) the Public opportunity to release, and Prosecutor has been oppose the application glven an for such (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that 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 specified in clause (b) of sub-secti,on (1) are in addition to the timitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 5 sKs, J crl.P.Ilo.2s7 of 2025 1973 (2 of 19741 or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail."

9. In view thereof, Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that offences involving commercial quantities be non-bailable, requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. Given the serious allegations against the petitioner, this Court is not satisfied that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are met. As such, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as sought for, by the petitioner. There are no merits in this Criminal Petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismissed. I \ To, Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// AS T sd/- K. AMMAJI REGISTRAR I CTION OFFICER 1 - The Special Seestons Judge for the-Trial of Cases under NDPS Act -cum- I ' niir]Seisions Judge at Kothagudem' 2. The ll Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kothagudem' 3. One CC to SRI R MANGULAL' Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two ccs to pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana [oUT] 5. Two CD CoPies PSK/gh v, HIGH COURT DATED:2310112025 ORDER CRLP.No.257 ot 2025 .iHE $ ,rr, /C 1 7 rri, luti ; +1 , -a, t ry' I o o t- ( * \t DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION