Criminal Petition No. 2266 of 2025 · The High Court · 2025

Order

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SIIJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2266 of 2025 ORDER: Seekir 11 the Court to enlarge the petititner, r,,ho is arrayed irs irccused No.4in Crime No.992 ol' 2024 of Mailardevpa ly Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, o:.r bail, the prest:n t (l r Lminal Petition is filed.

The briel facts of the case are that on 2t) lil,2024, t]ne Mailardevpall y Police seized the contrabald as the ac cused persons ar e L tryrng and selling the contraband legally t_o the general llublir: in order to earn money in an eas _. rnanr r:rand also registcr,: I a case uide Cirne No.992 of 20,.24 ce fo:-e the Mailardevpall.z Police, Ranga Reddy District, fo:: the oft'ences punishal)le under Section8(c) read with 2O(b)(ii)(C) <,f the NDPS Act rnC Section 77 of tLre JJA.

3. Heard llri P.Vikas raj, learned counsel uLppeari:rg on behalf ol tht petitioner as well as Sri Syed yasiar. Ma:noon, learned A.ddi .ional Public Prosecutor appearing for r.r:spo rdent - State.

4. Lea.n'Le,i :ounsei for the petitioner firstlg submitte(L that the petitiot te ;' is innocent and she is no way conce;-nec with t- ! I I I 2 SI(s,J c'1.P.fro.2266 of 2023 the alleged offences. He seandlg submitted that though tJrere is no corroborative evidence, the petitioner was implicated in the case with false and fabricated allegations. He thirdlg 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 29.12.2O24, causing undue hardship to her family. He ftJthlg strbmitted that the petitioner is resident of Maharashtra state, with movable and immovable properties, and is willing to furnish sureties as directed. He lastlg submitted that previously, bail application of the petitioner uide Cr1.M.P.No.26l6 of 2024 was dismissed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, on 1O.01.2O25, without valid reasonsand prayed the 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 counsel for the petitioner stating that the seized contraband i.e., 55.3 kgs of ganja is commercial quantity and also the investigation is not completed, therefore, granting bail to the petitioner, at this stage, does not arise. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss Lhe criminal petition. I I 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.226 6 of 2025

6. T.his (lourt, considering submissions ma,i e t!]' b,rth the parties and reviewing the material available c Ir rt:cor l, it is noted t h.rt th e contention of the Petitioner th:rt Lhe ;ase is false, JictitLorrs, and fabricated, the case '.r'as re6listered without lolt<,ting the due procedure. Howeve'r, the .earned Addilional. f \rblic Prosecutor opposes bail citin6l tL at the seized t:o:rt:'zrband is commercial quantity. At l,1-Iis statie, it is pertinent tc rLote Section 37 of the NDPS Act, v,hir:h rt'ads as under: \ '!7 Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Ccce of Criminal Procedure, 1973 12 of 19741, l.al er,:r offence punishable under this Act shall be r:o g -r iza ble ; (b) no person accused of an offence punishal)le lbr lfo1fi:nces under section 19 or section 24 or secti,;n 21 A ar,d. also for offences involving comrnercial quartity] shall be released on bail or on his orvn bcrc unless-- (i) the Public opportunity to hosecutor oppose the has been given rrn application for- su:h re ea se, and (ii] 'vhere the Public Prosecutor opposer the afFlcation, the court is satisfred that tho'e are re.trrnable grounds for believing that he :s rot guit, of such offence aIld that he is not lil:el1 to conunit any offence while on bail- 12' fhe limitations on granting of bail spec'.lied in :linr;c (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the 4 sKn,J Ctl.P.No.22Ci6 ol2g25 limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 19741 or any other law for the time being in foice on gmnting 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 petitioner are serious..in nature and the petitioner involved in other case ,'with similar offence, this Court is not satisfied that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 ate 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 aly pending, shall stand closed. Sd/. A SREEN NASAREDDY ASSISTAN T REGISTRAR /ITRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER to'',.

2. J.

4. 5 6 PSK Rai endernagar' ,n. *,, Additional Judicial Magistrate of First sessions Judse' Ransereddv District at ff:!ffi:flI"3jitliln,"t 'no i,i;t?LXl; House orficer, Mailardevpallv Police Station' cvberbad Bi:tst1i',#'5:1ka Vikas Rai, Advocate tQeu91 ^. . one cc to rhe public pro"Ji;';,'iig; court for the state of Telansana' Hyderabad [OUTI Two CD CoPies. \r HIGH COI'RT DATED:04/O31Z02S I ORDER GRLP.No.2266 of 2025 -+ 1e I pt S rl t(' o o 7- Itl JUI 296 ( t )Fs \--- DISMISSED THE CRIMINAL PETITION ( ,I :1 )t) ( r{ l I I I I