NI)PS Act, which IS inadmissible as per Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Hadul. No contraband was recovered from the petition

Petition under Section 483 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.l on bail in SESSION CASE NO. 0112024 on the file of Ld. Metropolitan Session Judge, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad, at NampallY. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B Bhagath Sain, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Deputy Solicitor General of lndia on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER IIT THE HIGH COURT T.IOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT ITYDERABAI) THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMIIIAL PETITION l{o.1697 OF 2o.26 DATE: 25-012.20.26 Between: Louis Sunna Uznna @ Peterson Zumba Petitioner/Accused And Union of India, Through Intelligence Offi cer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Hyderabad Sub-Zone, Hyderabad . Respondent : ORDER: This Criminal Petition is hled praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused in S.C. No.NDPS-O1/2024 pending on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad in Crime No.NCB F.No.48/ tlL12- 22lNCB/Sub-Zone/Hyd. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 2l(Cl, 23(C), 27 A, 28 & 29 of the 2 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 19gS (for short 'NDPS Act').

2. The briel facts of the case are that on 19.01.2022, ttre NCB ofhcials in Hyderabad examined a UpS parcel addressed to co-acr:used Ram Chandra Murti in Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. The consigner was identified as Mohamed El Amin Djekrit, resiclenr ot UAE. Inside a leather file folder, ofhcials recovered tu'o concealed packets containing 3g0 grams and 370 grams of heroin, totaling to 714 grams after mixing. A controlled delivery r,ras conducted under Seclion SOA NDPS Act using a dummv par<:el, which u.as delivered to Ram Chandra Murti at his residencc. Ram Chandra Murti,s statement under Section 67 NDPS Acr was recorded. He claimed he could assist in apprehending lhe petitioner herein in Delhi, but NCB ofhcials could not locate the petitioner at t.I:e given address. It is admitted th:rt rhe pr:titioner was neither the consigner nor the consignee of thc seized parcel. The consignee was Ram Chandra Murti, rvho also made the payment of Rs.8O6/- for clearance. He was granted bail on 25.O4.2022. NCB later sought permission to record thc petilioner's statement in Tihar Jail, but the statement \\,as never recorded. The complaint against the petrtioner hled after obtaining documents from another \1as 3 NCB case in Delhi. It is also alleged that petitioner is accused in S.C.No.NDPS-OI /2024 before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad, in Crime No.NCB F.No.48/lll/ 12022/NCBlSub-Zone/Hyd for the offences under Sections 2l(C), 23(Cl, 27A, 2a & 29 of NDpS Act. Further, the petitioner was arrested by NCB Delhi on

22.01.2022 in Crime No. VII/O7IDZU/2022 which is pending before Special Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.314 of 2022 and petitioner has been lodged in Tihar Jait, Delhi ftrr the four years and thereafter he was granted bail in the said crime on 24.12.2025. Hence, a case was registcred against the accused for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri B. Bhagath Sain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner arrd learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely irnplicated as an accused without recording his statement under Section 67 NDPS Act and without formal arrest in this case. Petitioner is neither the consigrrer nor the consignee of the seized parcel. The consignee was co-accused Ram Chandra Murthy who received the dummy parcel and made the payment of Rs.8O6/- from his own 4 account. He has alrr:ady been granted bail on 25.04.2022. Tlne petitioner was not arrcsted by NCB Hyderabad on 22.01.2022 despite attempts milde at the instance of the co-accused. The NCB authoritics did not irle any application before the Special Judge, Patiala House, New Delhi to examine the petitioner in Tihar Jail, even though they knew he was in custody in another case . Though permission was obtained from the Sessions Court, Hyderabad to record the petitioner,s statement in Tihar .Jai.l, the offlcials nevcr recorded it. No statement of the pctitioner undcr St:<ttion 67 NDPS Act exists to connect him with the co-acr.used. The only alteged link is four calls between petitioner's nlrmtrer and the co-accused,s number. The only evidence rclied upon is the co-accused's statement under Section 67 NI)PS Act, which IS inadmissible as per Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Hadul. No contraband was recovered from the petition(:r, no statement was recorded, and no transcripts or chats exist between him and the co-accused. He lurthcr contended that petitioner was not formally arrested in this case and lrail be granted on parity since the co-accused has already been granted bail. Further, petitioner was also granted bail rn the Delhi casc in Sessions Case No.314 12022 on 24.12.2022 and in this case charge sheet is also filed. Hence, ,(202 I ) 4 SCC 1 II 5 prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing the criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India filed counter vehemently opposing bail on the ground that the petitioner is alleged to be the intended receiver of the seized contraband 690 grams of heroin from parcel Tracking ID No. 120559450464193529 at UPS Express Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. The recovery was made under a Panchanama d,aLed 19.O1.2022. Investigation indicates that the petitioner was the ultimate beneficiary of the consignment routed through the co-accused His role is alleged to be deliberate and part of a structured drug traffrcking operation. The seized quantity is commercial, attracting stringent provisions under Sections 21(c), 23(cl, 27 A, 28, and 29 of the NDPS Act. It is further stated the petitioner has prior criminal antecedents, he was arrested on 19.O1.2022 in another case involving seizure of 7OO grams of Heroin from a parcel at IGI Airport, New Delhi. The claim that his statement was not recorded is denied. His statement was recorded on

23.07.2022 and hled along with the counter. The petitioner's involvement in two separate cases of commercial Heroin seizures shows a consistent pattern of international narcotics trafhcking. The repeated rnodus operandi of using international \ 6 parceis estabiishes that he is an active participant in organized drug tralhcking and rhat he is a habitual offender. If petitioner is released on bail, he may tntimidate or influence witnesses, interfcre u'ith prosecution evidence, coordinate with co-conspirators and continue his operations and may flee the jurisdiction to avoid prosecution. Hence, petitioner is not entitled for bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.

6. Considering thc sutrmissions made by both counsel and the ma[erial on recrtrd, thc contention of learned counsel for the petiticrner is th;rt from the -vear 2022 there is no progress in case and still it is at rhc sragc o[ lraming of charges and that petitioner is no wa.1. connccted rvith the case and he is falsely implicated in this c'asc bv executing p.T warrant and that from the last four years he is languishing in jail without any progress in trial, q,hereas thr: 16s1rl.6 Deputy Solicitor General of India opposed the same stating rhat the petitioner is involved in two crimes which are similar in nature and in both crimes huge commercial quantitl, o[ Heroine u.as found with the petitioner, as such petitioner is not entitled for bail. Considering the allegations against the petitioner and involvement of huge commercial quanLttl of Heroine and the previous crime history, 7 this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7 . Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible as the crime is of the year 2022. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/. T.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER Nampally. 1 . The Metropolitan Session Judge, City Criminal Courts Hyderabad at 2. One CC to SRI B BHAGATH SAIN, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to the Deputy Solicitor General of lndia [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ClsMlan \ To, HIGH COURT DATED: 2510212026 ORDER CRLP.No.1697 of 2026 T Y o , * 2 t r,tAR /ij16 t + TCu''n DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 0 t