The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mrs. ALMAS MOHAMMED, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. SYED YASAR MAMOON, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of lhe Sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER '1\ THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2336 of 2o25 ORDER: The present Criminal Petition is hled praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.ll 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 shorl 'Ir,lDPSI on bail.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on November 25, 2024, the police received credible information about a Mephedrone-type drug being manufactured in a Yadadri area factory, which would be delivered to a person frorn Bombay between 15:30 and 17:3O hours at the Railway under bridge near Sibinagar Toli Plaza. The police alleged that the drug would be transported in a Hyundai Verna with registration number AP L0 BG 1888, escorted by another vehicle bearing number TS 09 EX 170 1 , to evade checking. Following this information, the police apprehended A1 to A3 with 100 kg of l t ..: rlaf- 2 SKS,J Crl P.No.2336 of 2025 contraband, identihed as Mephedrone, ald recorded A1's confession statement. The confession a-llegedly implicated the petitioner's company, Yadadri Life Sciences, ald stated that lS kg of contraband was stored in the factory's- warehouse. The police later searched the company, seizing materials and arresting A I to A 14, including the petitioner, who was remanded to judicial custody for 60 days under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.

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 fabricated 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 false 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, , -:,4'f (- SKS,J CrLt'.No.2:;36 ot 2025 2024, whlle visiting the factory for a general inspection' and that the investigation is almost complete, wlth witness statements recorded. He averred that the petitioner lacks technical knorvledge, is merely the shift 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 the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned corrnsel for the petitioner stating that the quantum of recovery of contraband constitutes commercial quantity and that the petitioner is likely involved in the illegal activity along with other accused' He contended that releasing the pelitioner 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 for his alleged involvement in iltegal activity revolving 4 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.2336 of 2025 around 15 kgs of contraband being stored in the warehouse of factory by name Yadadri Life Sciences, where the petitioner was working shift in charge. At this stage, it is apparent to note that the police apprehended A1 to A3 with 1OO kg of contraband, identified as Mephedrone, and recorded Al'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 15 kg of contraband was stored in the factory's warehouse, and the petitioner is working as shift in charge 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 S<--ction 37 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under: "37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. -- (l) Notwithstanding anything conta.ined in the Code of Crilrrinal Procedure, ),97 3 (2 of 1974),-- (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; .4' j# 5 SKS"J Crl.P.No.2336 of 2025 (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for l[offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A ald also for offences involrT ng commercial quantityl shall 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 release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfred that there are reasonable grounds for believing 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 specifred in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are rn 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 NDI'S Act mandates that offences involving commercia'l quantities be ! I I ) 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.2336 of 2025 h' L,. non-bailable, 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 leveied against the petitioner with regard to his involvement in storing of Mephedrone, which is huge commercial quantity, this Court is not satished that conditions for granling 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 ,/TRUE COPY// Sd/- T JAYASREE TANT REGISTRAR ASSt ECTION OFFICER

1. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate 2. iii; 'stjtion House officer, BQlnagqr Polic€ - Corri.iionerate, Yadadri- Bhongir District' ; ix : 3lL,:'t,lrt"sa*u #Bi ffs::lJI"'S 5. Two CD CoPies "t tnolnt'ar"r'on, Rachakonda ra bad ( o Ur) closed To RC/PR,/ ,/ ,Z) HIGH COURT DATED:28/0212025 f I t t- 1f.B B.'*) ORDER CRLP.No.2336 of 2025 I .1. .1 )\' 'ai.^.\ 2 fl APi 2U5 I i L * Op-^PAr-c * ACCORD!NGLY, THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED /t /3 //5