The High Court · 2025

... Res po ndenUCom pla inant Petition under Section 480 & 483 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Bail to the petitioner/ Accused No.1 in Cr.No.398/2024 of P.S. Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon- hearing the arguments of Sri Mohd Muzaffer Ullah Khan, Advocate for the petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent State, The Court made the following: ORDER 7 I THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No'1985 of 2o25 ORDER: ' Seeking t he Court to enlarge the petitioner' u'h o is arrayed as accused No.1in Crime No'398 of 2024 of Humiryun Nagar Police Stzrlion, Hyderabad, on bail, the present Crininal Petition is filed.

2. The brief lacts of the case are that on 24'lO 2024 ' Lhe Humayr.rn Nagar Police seized the contraband as the accused persons are brlring and selling the contraband by iik gally transporting to the general public in order to earn mon :y in an ease mannerand also registered a case uide Crime No'398 of 2024 before the Humayun Nagar Police, Hyderabad' fcrr the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 22(('\' 27 and 29of the NDPS AcL.

3. Heard S,.i Mohd Muzaferultah Khan' learned co unsei appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Syed YasarMamoon,JearnedAddirionalPublicProsecutorappraring for respondent - State. .i .2 sKS,J Crt.p.No.l9ES of2O2S

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner frsflU submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he is no way concerned with the alleged offences. He seandlg submitted that though there is no corroborative evidence, the petitioner was implicated in the. case with false anrj fabricated allegations. He third lg submitted that all the material witnesses were examined, and further detention of the petitioner is unnecessary. He fourthlg submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 25.10.2O24, causing undue hardship to his family. He ftfthly submitted that the petitioner is resident of Hyderabad, with movable and rmmovable properties, furnish sureties as directed. He lostlu submitted that previously, bail applications of the petitioner uide Crl.M. P.No.54 43 of 2024 was dismissed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, on (,4.12.2024, without valid reasonsand prayed the Court to grant bajl to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition. and is willing to

5. On the other hand, Iearned Additional public prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the seized contraband i.e., 5O grams of MDMA is commercial quan tity and also the rnvestigation is not completed, therefore, granting bail to the petitioner, at this 7 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No,1985 of 2O25 stage, does nol- arise. Hence, he prayed the Cor.rrt to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. This Corirt, considering submissions made by bo.h the parties and revieu'ing the material available on rccord, it is noted that tht: contention of the petitioner that the c:rse is false, fictitious, and fabricated, the case was regir;tered without follow ing the due procedure. However, the le arned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes bail citing thzr t the seized contraband is commercia,l quantity. At this stag( , it is pertinent to n()te Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which rerLds as under: "3','. Offences to be cog-nizable and non bailable. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 {2 of 19741, (a) every offence punishabte under this Act shall be cognTable; (b) nc, person accused of an offence punishable for 1[offen,res under section 19 or section 24 or section 27 A :rrd. a,lso for offences involving commercial quantily] shall be released on bail or on his orvn bond unless-- (i) the Public - opportr-rnity to Prosecutor oppose the has been given an application for such release, and (ri) v'here the Public Prosecutor opposes the appli(ation, the court is satished that there are reasoneble grounds for believing that he is not ( 4 SKS,J Crl.P.IYo.1985 of2()25 x guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations 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 ot 19741 or any olher law for the rime being in force on granting of bail."

7. In view thereof, 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 while on bail. Hence, since the allegations levelled against the petitionef are serious in nature and there are no changed circumstances in the. case, this Court is not satished 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. Sd/- P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA NT REGISTRAR AS S //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The Vl Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Nampaily, Hyderabad. The Station^House Officer, HumayLi.r Nagar. UyOer![aO One CC to Sri. Mohd Muzaffer UlLh Kha;, Aaro.rtu tOpUCl Two CCs to Public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT) Two CD Copies Y,IR/DL To, 1 2 J 4 o- HIGH COURT DATED:0410312025 ORDER CRLP.No.1985 of 2025 ( c HE S lrr ; 6' 0 I APfl ;1125 i '\l-t .c\ 'i:.-.t:_:__ ,. DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION.