The High Court · 2025

The state of Telangana, Through Prohibition-and Excise, -saroorlagar Sialion, n"p. by its"puOiic Proslcutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, High court' Hyderabad ...RES'.NDENT/..M,LA'NANT Petition under Section 4BO & 483 of BNSS., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to release the PetitionerlA.2 on bail in crime occurrence Report [COR] No. 111 of 2024 dL. 22-11-2024 on the file of Excise Police station, Saroornagar, Hyderabad pending enquiry and trial on such terms and conditions as this court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G. Sundaresan, learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Addl Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER ,/ THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.21O5 of 2O23 ORDER: The present Criminal Petition is hled, seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner, on bail, who is arrayed as accused No. 1 in Crime No.11 | of 2024 of Excise Police Station, Saroornagar. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 8 (c) r /w .22 (C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short'NDPS ActJ.

2. The prosecution's case is that on 22.L1.2O24, at about 3: l0 p.m., the Station House Officer, Saroornagar police Station, along u,ith the SFT-D team and a Drug Inspector, detected a case of illegal possession of narcotics at Shyam Steel Palar:e, a shop located opposite to Nalla pochamma temple on Karmanghat Road, Kethepalle Muni Sekhar and Gandla Ramulu, were found standing with six cardboard boxes containing Fentaryl, Jakelav 625, Jikeef-LB, and Jikpod-CV. Upon further inquiry, they revealed that they had purchased the narcotics from Mahesh Kumar Saini without valid permission or licenses. The police seized the drugs in 2 the presence of panch witnesses and prepared a panchnama' The Drug Inspector identified the seized substances' confirming that some were related to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) while others were not' Based on the panchnama, the Excise Police registered a case against the accused for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri G.Sunderasan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners 1s that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of Drug Inspector due to personal disputes' Basing on the confession of co-accused, petitioner was implicated' Mere failure to produce the drug licence would not attract the provisions of NDPS Act, but may attract the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The petitioner is in jail from 22.11.2024. Hence, prayed to grant bail to the petitioner'

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail on the ground that the contraband seized from I I l I i 3 the possession of accused is a huge commercial quantity and in view of rigour of Section 37 of the NDpS Act, petitioner is not entitled for bail. As such, prayed this Courl to dismiss this application.

6. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that mere failure to produce the drug licence, rvould not attract the provisions of NDpS Act but may attract the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, whereas in the present case, the seized contraband is Fentanyl which comes under the NDPS Act. According to the prosecution, petitioner was found with this drug in illegal possession and the seized contraband is also commercial quantity. At this stage, it is pertinent to note Section 37 of the NDpS Act, and the same reads as under: "37. Offences to be cognizable and non bailable. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (2 of 197al,,--(al every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused o[ an offence punishable for l[offences under section lg or section 24 or section 27A and also for 4 o offences involving commercial quantity] shafl 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 rclease, and (ii) where the F\blic Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satislied that tltere are reasonable grounds for betieving that he is not 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 (l) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 ot 197 4l or any other law for the time 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-bailabie, requiring reasonable grounds to bclieve that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, 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. I I I I 5 e) B. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous appiications, if any pending, shall stand closed. To //TRUE COPY// Sd/- T JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION ICER '1 . The IAddl Diskict & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District. 2. The Station House Officer, Saroornagar Police Station, Rachakonda District.

3. One CC to Sri G. Sundaresan, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD copies. BJLB/PR s, HIGH COURT OATED:2710212025 ORDER CRLP.No.2105 ot 2025 l vtE SII; e I ,) ('( 22 nnv zu5 i {': I og.SPA] CH 90 i I CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED )