The High Court · 2025

Order

The pre sent Criminal Petition is filed craying this Court to cnlir-ge the petitioner who is arrayed as acc tsed No. 12 in Crirr.e No.375 of 2024 before the Bibrnagar P:lice Station, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, registt,red 1br the offences pun:s;hable under Sections 8(c) read wlth 21 1(c) and 29 of the Nar'<:otic Drugs And Psychotropic Sub'stances Act, 1985, (for sho -t 'NDPS') on bail.

2. The l>-ief facts of the case arf that on November 2I;, 2024, at 13:5O hours, Srb-Inspr:ctor N.Ramesh r--:eived credible information abt>ut eL rllrg supply. He qathered a team and intercepte<l two l,'hite Hyundai Vernr cars near the Railway underpasrs, Bibintgar. The cars wt:r'e driven by Nethi Krishna Reddy, Fz izan Ahmed, and rlheepiri Sunil. Upon searching t}e vt:hi:les, they found 1(rO kg of Mephedrone, a banned clrug, in four travel bags. The accused confessed to manufe:cturing and supplying th: drug. Krishna Reddy stated that he a long 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.l l3l of 2025 '.. with Bhanu Prasad and others, manufactured Mephedrone at Yadadri Life Sciences factory and supplied it to Faizan, who would deliver it to Mumbai. Faizan confessed to collecting the drug from Bhanu Prasad and Krishna Reddy and delivering it to Mumbai. Sunil, the driver, confessed to escorfing the vehicles during the drug deliveries. The police seized the drugs, cellphones, and vehicles, ald arrested the three accused. The police arrested the accused persons, including the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No'12' Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri S.Ganesh, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No' 1 - State and Sri Almas Mohammed, learned counsel for implead petitioner./ respondent No. 2. karned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 4. petitioner was falsely implicated in Crime No'37512O24 under the NDPS Act, despite having no involvement in the alleged offences. He contended tllat the name of petitioner was not mentioned in the FIR, and the allegations against 3 SKS,.I CrlPNo 11:11 , t 2025 him are baseC solely on the confession of co-ac<:used u hich is inadmissrbl,: as evidence. He averred that the petttton er is an employee of Sri Yadadri Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. and has .no role rn tht: manufacturing or supply of the seized dr ugs. He asserted lirat the investigation has been cornpleted, and the prosecutirn has recorded statements from 1 7 wr trlel ises, eliminatrng dre possibility of evidence tampering, arLd that the petitioner has cooperated with the investigation, has no antecedents, ,end is willing to abide by an1 conCit ions imposed by t5e Court. While advocating that the petiti rner has been ie judicial custody since his arrcst i.e., on November i1,6, 2024, he prayed this Court to ,3ran t bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

5. In supp,trt of his submissions, he relie,l upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pappu Gupta v. The state oi lU.p.,, wherein in paragraph No.32, it rs ,reld as under: "32. The facts of the case Binod Kumar @ Eiinod Kumrr| Bhagat Vs. State of Bihar, (2018) 14 SCC 199 tsupra) Corex cough syrup was seized b1. the ' M.Cr.C.ruo a506s oi 2020 decided on 23.o4_2o27 4 SKS,J I Crl.P.No.ll31of2025 police from the godown of Azad Transport Company F/t. Ltd and the appellant was the employee (Manager) of Azad Transport Company P!t. Ltd. The said company was engaged in the business of transportation of goods. The consignee was of Alsafa Surgical, Araria. The appellant was assigned with the duty of godown management. and the prosecution alleges that it was recovered from the appellant- So the apex court granted bail to the appellant. While in the instant case SAN Police se'rzed 66 bottles (ioo mt. each) of WelcJrrex cough syrup total 65O0 ml cough syrup (containing 10 mg. codeine phosphate in each bottle) from the possession of the co-accused Sandeep Tiwari. Which was iilcgaily being carried by him in a bag. So that judgernents do not help the applicant."

6. On the otller hand, iearned 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 is likely involved in the illegal activity along with other accused. He contended that releasing the petitioner on bail, could iead to him committing similar offence.s. Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss tl.e criminal petition. I .'l,*.-:.]*l*li-i,:*r;..'.-. 5 SKS.. Crl P No.Il ll r fi]025 Learnel counsel for implead petitioner'/ respor dent 7 . No.2 submit:cd that the implead petitioner/ M adabl-ru sirini Vasudeva C hary, Managing Director of M / s. -ia lzrdri Lifesciences Pvt., Ltd, has been falsely implicate d in the case and is .urrerLtly lodged in Charlapalli Central Prisotr ;ince Novemtrer 25, 2024. He contended that the prosecu-ion's case relies c,n alleged confessions of other ac:used ' r'shich are unsubs tantiated and lack clirect evidcnce as his company, a pharmaceutical firm, was issu':d a cl')sure notice by the Pollution Control Board on Augrst 30' )O24 and has ber:r non-operational since then' He aver:e(' that the seized rlaterials are regular inventory items an'l not contraband, and that the company deny its any involv':ment ' in manufactltrjng or possessing Mephedrone'

8. Harlinp; regard to the rival submissions marle and on going through the material placed on record' il is note'l that the police s;eized lOO kg of Mephedrone, and tht ' said contraband is commercial quantity' That being so it is relevant to e xtract Section 37 of the NDPS Acl' wl-rrch reads as under: 6 SKS.J Crl.P.No.l l3l of 2025 o "37. Offences to be cognizable arrd non- baitable. -- (1) Notwithstalding a,nything contained in the Code of Criminal-Procedure, 1973 (2 of S7a\,--(al every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; tb) no person accused of an offence punishable for 1[offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial qualtity] 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 guiitj' of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on 7 S KS,.I CrI.PNo.lL3 ol 2025 (2) 'i'-re limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) zre in aiclition to the limitatlons under the Cc'de ,rf Climinal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) ot aly rther law for the time being in force on gran:ing of bail." In vien' thereof, it is clear that Section 37 lf tfLe NI)PS 9. Act mandates that offences involving commercittl qrtunt tles be non-bailabl:, requiring reasonable grounds tr> belit:ve the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further o fe lces while on bai . As petitioner is an employee in th e said companJ' and its per his nature of job, he is aware ol-the day to day affairs cf the company, the judgment relied upor-r by the petilioner in Pappu Gupta (supra), is not zrpplicab e to the facts of tlLo case on hand.

10. Given ttLe serious set of allegations levele(l agains ' the petitioner witl regard to his involvement in seiztrre of LCrO kg of Mephedrore, which is huge commercial q'rantilY' this Court is not satisfied that conditions for granting bail under Section l]7 a -c met. Further, the investigation in the ca se is I I 8 SKS,J Crl.P No.1131 of2025 R\ \ not yet completed. Furthermore, the Court is informed that this petitioner is Scientist who previously worked in another company as Scientist, and the same shows that there is pima facie material against this petitioner. In view thereof, the criminal petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, sha1l stand closed. \ //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Additional Judicial First class Magistrate, Bhongir Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri z. in-e iiition House-Officer, Bibinagar, Police Station Bibinagar, Bhongir District Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District g. The Suoerintend Cherlapally Central Jail, Hyderabad' 4. One CC to SRI S GANESH Advocate [OPUC] s. rwb-cc. t" t-rrJ puelrc PROSECUTOR, High court for the state of Telangana, at HYderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD CoPies HIGH COURT DATED:2810212025 ORDER CRLP.No.1131 ol 202!i t. I t I T EL4 i: (.1 . .\*\<. "s, * o .I l'.! l; ;'. !1 ..i:!' .- \ -'l \ i,.. ,L' DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ( I u-- 4 1-\