The High Court · 2025

The petition/Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavii filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Gajula Prem Kumar, Advocate for the Petitione(s) and Sri Syed Yasan Manoon, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER: ! I I THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA. CRIMINAL PETITION No.152O of 2025 ORDER: Seel<ing I'rc Court to enlarge the pctitioners r,",ho ar e arrayed as accused Nos;,4 and 5 in Crime No.452 ol 2021 of Malakpet Police Station, I{yderabad, on bail, the present Crimir-ral l)etilion is filed.

2. The briel facts of the case are that on 16.12.2024, at 14:00 hours, Sub-lnspector P. Naveen received credible ir-rlbrmation about persons transporting prohibited ganja in a White Baleno car and a KTM bikc from Atmakur Village to Dhoolper, H,.'derabad. Believing the nformation to be true, he informed his superior officer and obtiLined oral instructions to verify it. A team, ncluding mediators :rnr1 clues team members, was formed and pro,;eeded to Gaddiannaram K Road, where they intercepted the veh;cles and apprehendecl lILc suspects.

3. Heard St i G. Prem Kumar, learned counsel appe.aring on behalf the pelirioners as well as Sri Syed Yasan Manoon, learned Additional Plrblic Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent. I I I i ! I I I I l t ' z SKS,J Crt.P.No.152O of 2025

4. Learned counscl for thc pe titioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and falsely implicated in a case involving contraband, stating that the seized items were not recovered from their possession. Despite lacking evidence, the police registered a case against them. He further submitted that the petitioners have no prior crimrnal record and no pima facie case exists against them. He further submitted that the petitioners were arrested on

16.12.2024, and is currently in Chanchalguda Jail, Hyderabad. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing lhis Criminal Petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the petitioners are drug peddlers. He further submitted that the investigation is in progress and if the petitioners are released on bail, at this stage, they may tamper with the evidence and may threaten the witnesses and he further submitted that the petitioners wcrc involvcd in other three cases. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. This Court, considering submissions made by both the learned counsel and reviewing the rccord, it is noted that the contention of the petitioners that the case is false, hctitious, and fabricated, the case was registered without following the due / 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No. t520 of 2025 procedure. I{ovr,:ver, the Additional Public Proseculot' oplroses bail citing commcr,:.al quantity approximately 30 kgs of g,rnja and further tl.re pe itioner is involved in other three cases. At this stage, it is pr:rtinent to note Section 37 of the NDPS A.;t, which reads as undr:r t I "3,7 Oflences to be cognizable and non bailable. {1) Notu, itrrstanding anything contained in the Code ol Crimir:al Procedure, 1973 12 of 197a1, la) ever.r, offence punisL able under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) rro person accused of an offence punishatrlc for 1[offt:n::s r.lnder section ]9 or section 2,1 or section 27A ancl al,;o for offences rnvolving commercial quantrt\, shrill be relc r scd on bail or on his orvn bond unless-- (r) the rlblic Prosecutor has been given an oppor-tunrtl to oppos€ I he application for such release, and (ir) rvh.:re the Public Prosecutor opposes the applicatiolr, the corrt is satished that there are reasonable grounds for b,:1 er.ing that he is not guilty of such offence and that ht' rs n r: likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) 1'h( limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of ;r-rb-section (1) are in addition to the limitatlons under Ire Cocle of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 ol 1974]. or ant ()t r,-'r lau. for the time being in force on granting of bail." 7 . In vierv t rereof, Section 37 of the NDPS Act mand,ttes that offences involvi -rg commercial quantities be non-bailable, -equiring reasonable groL.nds to believe the accused is not gliilty and unlikely to cornntit further offences while on bai1. Given th,: serious 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.l520 of2025 11 allegations and pending cases against the petitioners, this Court is not satisfied that conditions for granting bail under section 37 are met. 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// Sd/- N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER '1 . The Station l-{ouse Officer, lvlalakapet Police Station, Hyderabad. 2. The Sessions Judge,.Nampally Criminal Courts, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to Sri. Gajula Prem Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. [OPT]

5. Two CD copies. PSK/gh I i I l : l ; I : \ HIGH GOURT DATED:1810212025 i ORDER ,./.',.1\ L\i' : e 'i'r ^r CRLP.No.1520 of 2025 C o ilt w ,, 2e$ ,r L Dismissed the Criminal Petition a' .tt'y' -';.),i -ia:t' ar:, 4 .-./ :i'- Tdz