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 regular bail in vide Crime No. 992 of 2024, Police Station, Mailardevpally, Rangareddy District This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri CHANDRASHEKHAR YADAV S, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1O97 of 2o25 ORDER: The present Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.992 of 2024 before the Mailardevpally Police Station, Rangareddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 2o(b)(ii)(c) of the'Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short 'NDPS') and Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care arrd Protection of Children) Act, on bail.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on December 29, 2024, at 17.45 hours, a written complaint was received from Sri Md. Majid Ali, Sub-Inspector of Police, Mailardevpally, stating that five individuals, including tu,o women and a minor boy, were found transporting 55.3 kilograms of ganja in three bags at Lucky Tea & Pan Shop, Aramghar X Road. The accused, Rohidas Ranganath, petitioner/Ajay Balu Mohite, Chitra Kailash Mohite, Lakshmi Subhashi Mohite, and Raiu Subhash Mohite, were I I 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No. lO97 of 2025 arrested and their cell phones and cash weie seized. They allegedly purchased the ganja at Andhra-Orissa border for Rs. 1,80,000 and were transporting it to Maharashtra to sell it at a higher price. A case was registered under the NDPS Act and investigation was taken up. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is Iiled.

3. Heard Sri Chandrashekar Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional ,\ Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent - State.

4. l,earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was fa-lsely implicated in the crime by the respondent police for statistical purposes. He contended that the seizure panchanama reveals that only 18.3 kg of dry ganja was seized from the petitioner, categorizing it as an intermediate quantity. He asserted that the petitioner denies knowingly possessing or gathering ganja and has been falsely implicated. He averred that as a law-abiding citizen from a respectable family, the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and abide by any conditions imposed by the Court, while also furnishing 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.l097 of 2025 sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by aliowing 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 quantum of recovery of contraband constitutes commercial quantity and that the petitioner was attempting to sell the said contraband in the State of Maharashtra. He averred that whether the said contraband was in joint possession or individual possession carnot be decided at this stage when the investigation is still under progress. He 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 rivai submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that as per the version of prosecution, the seized contraband is

55.3 kgs, whereas, the contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that only l8.3kgs of ganja was seized from t! 4 SKS,J CrI.P.No.l097 of2025 individual possession of petitioner. However, both the quantities fall under commercial quantity. That being so, it is relevant to extract Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under: "37. Offences to be cog-nizable and non- bailable. -- (1) Notwithstanding anlthing contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of L97a),--(al every offence punishable under this Act sha-ll be cognizable; (b) no person accused of arl offence punishable for l[offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences 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, and 5 S(S,J Crl.P.No.1O97 of 2025 (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, t}re court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likelv to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The lirnitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 197 4l or any other law for the tirne being in force on granting of bail." t I

7. 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 guilty and unlikeiy to commit further offences while on bail. Given the serious set of allegations leveled against the petitioner with regard to his involvement in possession of commercial qualtity of that was seized, this Court is not satislied that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are met. Further, the investigation in the case is 6 . SKS,J Crl.P.No.1O97 of 2025 not yet completed and the petitioner is prime accused in the case. Therefore, the criminal petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. \ To, //TRUE COPY// Sdi- MOHD. ASSISTANT REG MAIL TRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Xll Judicial Magistrate of First Class Ranga Reddy Dist at Rajendranagar 2. The Station House Officer, Mailardevpally Police Station, Cyberabad 3 One CC to SRI CHANDRASHEKHAR YADAV, S Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Com m iss ionerate. Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies SM/gh I HIGH COURT DATED: 0710212025 ORDER CRLP.No.1097 of 2025 '.4 i\'. E} [3 APff Zffi * D g\) CT DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION n ()