The High Court · 2025

stated in the affidavit filed in support of the criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/ accused No.1 on bail in crime No. 1g1 l of 2024, registered with the station House officer of p.S Gachibowli. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M. Rathan Singh, Advocate for the Petitioners and the of the learned Addl public prosecutor (TG) on behalf ofthe Respondent The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1446 of 2o25 ORDER: The present Criminal Petition is hled przty ing this Court to enlarge the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.181 | of 2024 before the Gachiborvli Police Station, registered for the offences punishatrle under Sections 8(c) read witt. 22(c\, 27 arid 29 of tLrc Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic' Substances Act, 1985' (for short 'NDPSJ on bail. The bnef facts of the case are that the petitioner was 2. arrested and charged with possessing and selling prohibited substances, rncluding 18 grams of MDMA, 7 grams of Indian charas, and 1 gram of Kush' Allegedly, the petitioner was selling these substances while keeping the profits for himself. Based on his alleged confession, he was remanded and along with Accused No' 2, sent to judiciai r;ustody on November 30, 2024 . Aggrieved thereby' this' Criminal Petition is Iiled. I I' 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1446 of 2O25

3. Heard Sri M.Rathan Singh, 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 remand case diary alleges that the petitioner consumed and sold MDMA, but the urine test conducted by the investigation agency was negative, contradicting the allegations. He contended that the alleged contraband w,as not seized solely from the possession of petitioner, and that accused Nos. 3 and 4 were issued notices under Section 35(3) of the BNSS Act, casting doubt on the seizure He lamented that there is no documentary proof that the petitioner rented Flat No. 3O3, and that there are shortcomings in the investigation, medical report, and remand case diary. Therefore, he prayed this 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 quantum of recovery of contraband constitutes commercial quantity and ( 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No- 14,16 of2025 that the petitioner is prime accused in the illegal activity along with other accused. He contended that releasing the petitioner on bail, could lead to him commil-ting similar offences. Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions r:riade and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the police seized 18 grams of MDMA, 7 graras of Indian charas, and 1 gram of Kush, and the said colrtraband is commercial quantity. That being so, it is relevant to extract Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under: "37. Offences to be cognizable and non- hailabte. -- (1) Notwithstanding an$ring containecl in the Code of Criminal Procedure, ig73 (2 of 197a1,--(al every oIfi:nce punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no Person accused of an offence punishable for l[offences under section ]9r or section 24 or section 27A and also for 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No. 1446 of 2025 offences involving commercial 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 like1y to commit any offence while on bail. (21 Th.e lirnitations on granting of bail specilied in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 7973 (2 of 79741 or any otJrer law for the time being in force on granting of bail."

7. In view thereof, it is clear that Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that offences involving commercial quantities { 5 SKS,J Cr .I'.No.1446 of 2O25 be non-bailable, requiring reasonable grounds l.o believe the accused is r-rot guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. Given the serious set of allegations leveled against the petitioner with regard to his involvement in seizure of 18 grams of MDMA, 7 grams of Inlian charas, and 1 gram of Kush, this Court is not s,erisfied that conditions for granting bail under Section lllz are met. Further, the investigation in the case is not yot completed and the petitioner is prime accused in the cas,--. Therefo,re, the criminal petition lacks merit artd the same ir; liable to be dismissed.

8. Acco;:dingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed Miscellaneous applications, if aly pencling, shali stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K. AMMAJI ASSI:]TANT REGISTRAR i) SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The X Addl Metropolitan t\ilagistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad'

2. The Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station' Hyderabad'

3. One CC to Sri lvl Rathan Singh, Advocate [OPUC]

4.TwoCCstoPUBL|CPROSECUToR,HighCourtforthelStateofTelangana at Hyderabad [OUT] o

5. Two CD copies. Bish i; rA €' .:1 o o ;l 1 liPil 20m t f v C, -t. , -:- HIGH COURT OAf ED:131O212O25 ORDER CRLP.No.1446 of 2025 CRIMlNAL PETITION IS DISMISSED 06 &