The High Court · 2025

The petition/Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Rathan Singh M, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Syed Yasar [Vlamoon, Addl. Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, on behalf of the State and None appeared for Respondent No.2. THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER l THE IIONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2O48 of 2o25 ORDER: The oresent Criminal Petition is {iled prayin6r, this Court to er rJarge the petitioner who is arrayed as acl)used No.3 in Crrne No.1356 of 2024 registered for the off,:nces punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 2o (b) (ii) (i) and 29 of the N a rcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance ; Act, 1985 (fol short 'NDPS ActJ before the Meerpet i?olice Station, Rachakonda, on bail.

2. The l>r'ief facts of the case are that on 30.1 l.2O.24, at 14:3O horu-s, a credible tip off was received ilbout indivicluals transporting and selling Ganja, a na rcotic substancr:, fiom Injapur via Trrrkayamjal to Gurramgr.Lda in a blue-cok red Baleno car with registration number 'iS 3 I G 0459. T1-.e information was promptiy shared vvita the superior ()'Ticer under Section a2Q) of the NDPS Act, and a General Diary entry rvas made. Investigation revealet I that accused A 1 and petitioner had rented the Baleno car from n i i l : i I I I I I : 2 SKS,J Crl P No.2O48 of 202-5 Automotive Sagar Compiex on November 2g, 2024, at 11:50 hours. They then traveled to Mangampadu in Alluri District, where they purchased 36 packets of Ganja, each weighing approximately 2 kilograms, totaling 72 kilograms. The substance was concealed in three plastic bags. The petitioner, along with A.l, A2 and A4, were found to be in contact with each other solely through WhatsApp calls. After purchasing the Ganja, A- i and petitioner began their journey back to Hyderabad, arriving on November 29,

2024. On November 30, 2024, at around 16:OO hours, A-l left his residence to meet A-2 and, petitioner on Zp Road, Meerpet, to facilitate the transportation of the Ganja to Maharashtra. However, he was apprehended by the authorities while en route. Thereafter, a case was registered against the petitioner for the offences as alleged. Aggrieved thereby, this criminal petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri Rathan Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent - State. ,li ' ,g F}F.,E/ //. ..',,,? 3 SKS,.J CrI.P.No.20.+8 cf 2025 4 . Learr e d counsel for petitioner submitted that- the petitioner ir.; innocent and has no connection whatsoe\.'er to the drugs that were seized in the case. He fu rther submitted tLLat no contraband was found in the possession of petitionr:r, rvhich raises serious doubts aboul his involvemen - in the alleged offence. He averred thar- the investigation rnto the matter has been completed, an( [ yet, the petitiorrrr remains in judicial custody. He contended that the pe,,itioner has been falsely implicated in the case, and hiS c1e trntion is unwarrarted. He asserted tha - the petitioner r ; the sole breadwinner of their family, w ith a fixed rcsiclence and properties, and his continued incarceratic'n is causing undue hardship to their loved ones. He averred that this Court has already granted bail to A2 and reqr-rested this Court to grant the same relief t r the petitioner. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow the criminal pe .ition, granting the relief of bail to the petiti rner.

5. On he other hand, learned Additional F'ublic Prosecuto: opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the case revclves 4 SKS,J Crl.P,No.2048 of 2O25 .f around transport of drugs and that as per the complaint averments, the petitioner is actively involved in the alleged transportation of drugs and that the investigation of the case is yet to be completed. Therefore, while highlighting the seriousness of the offence and the need to prevent the petitioner from absconding or tampering with eviclence, he 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 the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is falsely implicated in the case and he has nothing to do with the alleged transport of contraband. As per the submissions, the primary ground urged for grant of bail to this petitioner is that this Court has already granted the relief of bail to accused No.2 in the case. However, this Court observes that the accused No.2 was granted bail in view of pregnancy of his wife and the complications thereof. Hence, the said ground does not come to the aid of petitioner. 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No 204€ of 2025

7. Furth,:r, Lhe seized contraband in the carie 1s commercia quantity. That being so, it is relevant to e'<tract Section 37 ol the NDPS Act, which reads as under: ":i:7. Offences to be cognizable ar-rd non- b.llable. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything c, nrtained in the Code of Criminal P-ocedure, 7973 (2 of 1974), (a) every olTence punishable under this Act shall be c,rllnizable; (t) no person accused of al offence plnishable for l[offences under section 19 o'' section 24 or secLion 27A atd also for oilences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless - (i the Public Prosecutor has been given ar-r ooportunity to oppose the application for srrch release, and 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.2048 of2O25 (-) (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 th-at he is not likely to comrnit aly offence while on bai1. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause [b) of sub-section (1) are in additron to the limitations under tfre Code of Criminal Procedure, 7973 (2 of 197 4l or any other law for the time being in force on gralting of bail."

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 guilty and unlikely to commit further offences u,hile on bail. Given the serious set of allegations leveled against the petitioner with regard to his involvement in possession of commercial quantity of contraband, this Court is not satisfred that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are met. Further, the I I I t I I I ; .l To, 7 SKS,J Crl.P No 20.18 )f2025 investigatio r in the case is not yet completed. Thert:fore, the crimina I petition lacks merit and the same is liat:,le to be dismissed.

9. Accord ingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed Misr:e'l laneous applications, if any pendirrg. shall stand closerl //TRUE COPY// Sd/- N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR i\\ JE CTION OFFICER \ '1 . The Vl Addl l,4etropolitan Magistrate, L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy District. 2. fhe Station House Officer, lt/leerpet Police Station. Rachakonda 'J Commensural.e. Hyderabad.

3. One CC to Sri Rathan Singh.lt/, Advocate tOPUCI 4. One CC to the Public Prosecutor Advocate [OPT] 5- Two CD Copir:s. PSt(gh HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212025 ORDER CRLP.No.2048 of 2025 ( q o o - . .'rf .: 0 / AiH til25 2 ! \_ -:i *,, -ci-y' :.\-i r..'r/. r CHr_'-/ ' -'--::-- - --_ _ DISMISSED THE CRIMINAL PETITION I I I I I 1