Criminal Petition No. 2329 of 2025 · The High Court · 2025

Order

The present Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No. 14 in Crime No.375 of 2024 before the Bibinagar Police Station, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short 'NDPS') on bail.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on November 25, 2024, the police received credible inforrnation about a Mephedrone- t-vpe drug being manufactured in a Yadadri area factory, which would be delivered to a person from Bombay between i5:30 and 17:3O hours at the Railway under bridge near Sibinagar Toll Plaza. "f}re police alleged that ttre drug would be transported in a Hyundai Verna with registration number AP 10 BG 1888, escorted by another vehicle bearing number TS 09 EX 170 1 , to evade checking. Following this I information, the police apprehended A1 to A3 with 1O0 kg of l t i 2 I SI(SJ Crl.P.No.2329 of 2025 contraband, identified as Mephedrone, and recorded Al's confession statement. The confession allegedly implicated the petitioner's company, Yadadri Life Sciences, and stated that 15 kg of contraband was stored in the factory's warehouse. The police later searched the company, seizing materials and arresting A1 to A14, including the petitioner, who was remanded to judicial custody for 6O days under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is fiied.

3. Heard Sri Almas Mohammed, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent - State. 4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations leveled by police against the petitioner are entirely [abrical.ed and false, and that the petitioner is innocent, unaware of the alleged crime, and has been implicated for unknown reasons. He contended that the police had filed a lalse case based solely on the alleged confession of another accused, without any evidence against the petitioner. He asserted that the petitioner was apprehended on November 25, - 3 S(S,J Crl.l'].No.2329 of 2O25 2024, whll<: visiting the lactory for a general inspection, ald that the investigation is almost complete, with witness statements recorded. He averred that the petitioner lacks technical knowledge, is merely the store in charge, and is the sole breadwinner of his family, who will suffer hardship and mental agony if he is detained, especially given his health issues. Therefore, prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On tire other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the quantum of recovery of contraband constitutes commercial qualtity and that the petitioner is likely involved in the illegal activity along with other accused. He contended that releasing the petitioner on bail, could lead to him committing similar offences. Therefore, 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 based on the confession of A1, the petitioner was implicated in the case foi- his alleged involvement in illegal activity revolving r I I i -l I I I I I 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.2329 of2O25 -. I I around 15 kgs of contraband being stored in the warehouse of factory by name Yadadri Life Sciences, where the petitioner was working as Store Assistant. At this stage, it is apparent to note that the police apprehended A I to A3 -with 100 kg of contraband, identified as Mephedrone, and recorded A1's confession statement, based on which the company where the petitioner is working, i.e.,, Yadadri Life Sciences, was implicated. The case of the prosecution itself is that i 5 kg of contraband was stored in the factory's warehouse, and the petitioner is working as Store Assistant in the said company. Though learned counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner was not attending the said company and that he was present on that day only to help the Officials who came for inspection, the same cannot be a ground to seek the relief of grant of bail. It is further noted that the seized contraband is huge commercial quantity. That being so, it is relevant to extract Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under: "37. Offences to be cogrrizable and non-bailable. -- (1) Notwithstarding an5'thing contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 19741,-- (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; I I I \ 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.2329 of 2025 (b) no person accused of an olfence punishable 1 for l[offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and a.lso for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on hrs own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ir) 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 that he is not like1y to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specifred in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (2 of 19741 or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail." 7 . In view thereof, it is clear that Section 37 of the NDpS Act mandates that offences involving commercial quantities be \ I I '/ 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.2329 of 2025 non-baiiable, requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. Given the serious set of allegations leveled against the petitioner with regard to his involvement in storing of Mephedrone, which is huge commercial quantity, this Court is not satisfied that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are met. Further, the investigation in the case is not yet completed. 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 clcsed. SD/- A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REBISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bhongir. 2. The Station House Officer, Bibinagar Police Station, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District

3. One CC to Mrs. Almas Begum Mohammed, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.(OUT)

5. Two CD CoPies YJFVPSI V HIGH COURT DATED:2810212025 I I I I I t ORDER CRLP.No.232,9 of 2025 ( ,',,,' I t{F. J l'.:\ r{- 2 B APn 2U5 t5.i 64T c * DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION. @Y6#