The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 4}0l4g3 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal ietition, the High court may be ql."?."ed to.release the petitioners on bail in on cr.No.166.t tzozi, tvtiyapuriitile Station and pass This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri MEDlsr RATNA RAo, Advocate for the petitioner and the Additional public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Gourt made the following: ORDER n ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SMT WSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.683 of 2025 The present Criminal Petition is fded praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.4 in Crime No. 1661 of 2024 before the Mryapur Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 22(b) all.d,27 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short 'NDPS] on bail.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on December 4,2024, the Special Task Force (STF) team received credible information regarding the possession and transportation of narcotics. Acting swiftly on the tip-off, the STF team conducted a tJrorough check near Chanda Nagar railway station, Serlingampally. During the inspection, the seizing Oflicer intercepted the accused and conducted a search, which yielded 1.004 kilograms of Hashish Oil. The seized substance was subsequently taken into custody as evidence. Following the seizure, the petitioner was taken into custody on December 9, 2024 for the offences as mentioned above which pertain to the possession, sale, and transportation I I v 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.683 of2025 of narcotic substances. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri Ratna Rao, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional public prosecutor appearing on beha,lf of respondent - State. 4 - Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case, with no contraband seized from his possession. He contended that the search and seizure procedure was vitiated by procedural impropriety, and that the mandatory provisions of law were not followed, casting doubt on the investigation. He averred that the petitioner is not connected to the seized drugs and has no criminal antecedents, and that the petitioner has a fixed address, permanent residence, and is the sole breadwinner of his family. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petilioner 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 ttrat during the inspection, the quantum of recovery of contrabald constitutes a commercial quantity. He I { C': SKS,J C.l.P.No.683 of2025 contended that releasing the petitioner on bail could lead to him committing similar offences. Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the only uncertaint5r is with regard to qua_ntum of recovery of contraband from the petilioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the contraband seized is not a commercial quantity, whereas, the seizure report would show that 17 small covers of MDMA, two celi phones and tab were seized and that the said 17 small covers contained IZ grams of MDMA and the same is commercial quantity.

7. That being so, it is relevant to extract Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under: I "37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. - - (l) Notwitlstanding an5rthing contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, l9Z3 (2 ot D7al,--(al every offence punishable under tJlis Act shall be cognizable; 4 SKS,J CrI.P.No.683 of 2025 (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for l[offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving com-rnercial quantityl shall be released on bail or on his 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 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 grarting of bail specilied in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to{le 'Iirnitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 19741 or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail."

8. In view thereof, it is clear that Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that offences involving commercial quantities be non- I 5 SKS,J Crl.P-No.683 of 2025 bailable, requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. Given the serious set of allegations leveled qgainst the petitioner with regard to his involvement in possession of 17 grams of MDMA, this Court is not satisfied that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are met. Therefore, tJle criminal petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscelianeous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. To, sd/- A.SREENIVASA REDDY ANT REGISTRAR AS //TRUE COPY// 0 SECTION OFF ICER I i,llliiq+",T:fl;ifrTyny#tti,?l*liflfiii:'::;"," "* 5. Tfro CD CoPies Hvderabad (OUT) SM/PR ** HIGH COURT DATED: 2810112025 I 1tlf,. Slal4 17 til TCti I ) o t) \ * ORDER CRLP.No.683 of 202 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION @ $ I I