The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 480 & 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/Accused No.2 on Bail in connection with Crime FIR No.432 OF 2024 of P.S. HUMAYUN NAGAR. ...RESPONDENTS This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M Krishna Chaitanya, Advocate -for the Petitioner and the Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT WSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMIITAI PETITIOIt I{o.7aO of 2of25 ORDER: The present Criminal petition is filed praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.2 in FIR.No.432 of 2024 before the Huma5run Nagar police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read wiLh 22(cl and, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 19g5, (for short NDpS ActJ on

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.12.2024, on receiving credible information about the possession and sare of MDMA by four individua_ls near Dowlath Function Hall in Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad, the authorities apprehended the accused at 2:3O pM and seized 30 grams of MDMA, along with several cell phones. According to tlte confession of accused NO.l, they had purchased the MDMA from a main supplier, Shaik Amer, and sold 2O grams to customers before being caught by the police. The accused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.12.2024, with a case I 2 registered under the NDPS Act. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri M.Krishna Chaitanya, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 13.12.2O24, and tJlat his further detention is unnecessar5r as the investigation in the case is completed. He averred that the bail application of petitioner was previously dismissed by the trial Court without valid reason and that the case against the petitioner is based on false allegaLions. He asserted that petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation, appear before the Court as required, and furnish suflicient sureties to the satisfaction of the Court, while also abiding by any imposed terms and conditions, demonstrating no likelihood of escape or absconding. Therefore, he prayed tJle Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing ttris criminal petition. l I I 3 f

5. On the other hand, learned Additional public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the quantum of recovery of contraband constitutes commercial quantity and that the sarne was in possession of accused No.l and based on his confession, the petitioner was implicated in the case. He contended that releasing the petitioner on bail, could lead to 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 3O grams of MDMA was seized by the police from the possession of accused in this case. The seized contraband is commercial quantity.

7. 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, \ I I 4 (.- 1973 (2 of 19741,--(4 every oflence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for l[offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A atd, also for olfences involving commercial quantity] 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, ald (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for beliwing that he is not guilty of such olfence 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-section (l) are in addition to the limitations under tle Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 19741 or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail." 5

8. In view thereof, it is clear that Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that offences involving commercial quantities be non-bailable, requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not gu ty and unlikely to commit furttrer offences while on bail. Given the serious set of allegations leveled against the petitioner with regard to his involvement in possession of 30 grams of MDMA, t].is court is not satisfied that conditions for granting bair under Section 37 are met. Further, the investigation in the case is not yet completed. Therefore, the criminal petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9 Accordingly, this Criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/-A. SRINTVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER ( To, ] ]fe Vt Additionat Chief Judiciat Magistrate, at Hyderabad. 2. The Station House officer. Hr.;yr"; N;;:rtoull=i,",,on, Hyderabad. t lff"rt3:.:iJJij'" Prosecutor, Hign c"ourt ioilr,u st"t" of reransana One CC to S ri M Krishna Chaitanya, Advocate tOpUCl Two CD Co 4 5. DL/gh HIGH COURT DATED:05/0212025 ORDER CRLP.No.780 of 2025 qrt S!r' r" 1 9r, ( t 3 zqtt'r 2u6 t D E., n^TCH 2 Li .l * DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

Petition under Section 480 & 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/Accused No.2 on Bail in connection with Crime FIR No.432 OF 2024 of P.S. HUMAYUN NAGAR. ...RESPONDENTS This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M Krishna Chaitanya, Advocate -for the Petitioner and the Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT WSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMIITAI PETITIOIt I{o.7aO of 2of25 ORDER: The present Criminal petition is filed praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.2 in FIR.No.432 of 2024 before the Huma5run Nagar police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read wiLh 22(cl and, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 19g5, (for short NDpS ActJ on

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.12.2024, on receiving credible information about the possession and sare of MDMA by four individua_ls near Dowlath Function Hall in Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad, the authorities apprehended the accused at 2:3O pM and seized 30 grams of MDMA, along with several cell phones. According to tlte confession of accused NO.l, they had purchased the MDMA from a main supplier, Shaik Amer, and sold 2O grams to customers before being caught by the police. The accused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.12.2024, with a case I 2 registered under the NDPS Act. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri M.Krishna Chaitanya, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 13.12.2O24, and tJlat his further detention is unnecessar5r as the investigation in the case is completed. He averred that the bail application of petitioner was previously dismissed by the trial Court without valid reason and that the case against the petitioner is based on false allegaLions. He asserted that petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation, appear before the Court as required, and furnish suflicient sureties to the satisfaction of the Court, while also abiding by any imposed terms and conditions, demonstrating no likelihood of escape or absconding. Therefore, he prayed tJle Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing ttris criminal petition. l I I 3 f

5. On the other hand, learned Additional public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the quantum of recovery of contraband constitutes commercial quantity and that the sarne was in possession of accused No.l and based on his confession, the petitioner was implicated in the case. He contended that releasing the petitioner on bail, could lead to 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 3O grams of MDMA was seized by the police from the possession of accused in this case. The seized contraband is commercial quantity.

7. 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, \ I I 4 (.- 1973 (2 of 19741,--(4 every oflence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for l[offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A atd, also for olfences involving commercial quantity] 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, ald (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for beliwing that he is not guilty of such olfence 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-section (l) are in addition to the limitations under tle Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 19741 or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail." 5

8. In view thereof, it is clear that Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that offences involving commercial quantities be non-bailable, requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not gu ty and unlikely to commit furttrer offences while on bail. Given the serious set of allegations leveled against the petitioner with regard to his involvement in possession of 30 grams of MDMA, t].is court is not satisfied that conditions for granting bair under Section 37 are met. Further, the investigation in the case is not yet completed. Therefore, the criminal petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9 Accordingly, this Criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/-A. SRINTVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER ( To, ] ]fe Vt Additionat Chief Judiciat Magistrate, at Hyderabad. 2. The Station House officer. Hr.;yr"; N;;:rtoull=i,",,on, Hyderabad. t lff"rt3:.:iJJij'" Prosecutor, Hign c"ourt ioilr,u st"t" of reransana One CC to S ri M Krishna Chaitanya, Advocate tOpUCl Two CD Co 4 5. DL/gh HIGH COURT DATED:05/0212025 ORDER CRLP.No.780 of 2025 qrt S!r' r" 1 9r, ( t 3 zqtt'r 2u6 t D E., n^TCH 2 Li .l * DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION