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 sri G ANIL KIRAN KUMAR, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. SyED YASAR MAMOON, Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Sole Respondent The Court made the following: ORDER I I + THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA QRIM-I@ ORDER: The present Criminal Petition is filed, seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioners, on bail, who are arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.61 of 2025 of Hayathnagar police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 8 (c) r/w. 22 (b)(ii)(c), 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').

2. The case of the prosecution is that On January 12,2025, at 22:30 hours, Sub-lnspector of Police, Hayathnagar PS, received credible information about a Toyota lnnova car carrying ganja. The police intercepted the vehicle and apprehended two suspects, Bandi Raju Babu and Talati Durga Prasad, while one person, Pangi Sunil Kumar, escaped. Upon searching the vehicle, 28.78 kg of ganja was seized, along with two cell phones and lhe vehicle itself. The suspects confessed to transporting and selling ganja, revealing that they had purchased it from Lokon in Odisha and sold some of it in Hyderabad. The police \. -, -.,1 ..1 2 - recorded the confessions and seized the evidence, and the suspects were taken into custody. Further investigation is needed to apprehend the other accused individuals-

3. Heard Sri G. Anil Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bail application of the petitioner should be granted due to several irregularities in the case of the prosecution' Specifically, the sampling of the seized substance was not done under the supervision of a magistrate as required by Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. He further submitted that the remand case diary does not mention the preparation of an inventory of the seized substance or sending it for chemical examination and that the contraband was not seized in the presence of gazetted oflicers as required by Section 50 of the Act. He contended that the petitioner was falsely implicated, has no criminal antecedents, and is willing to cooperate with the investigation. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in Criminal Petition No.4428 of 3

2022. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor .opposed bail on the ground that the seized contraband is commercial quan tity and petitioner is remanded only on 3O.O1.2O25. lnvestigation is not yet completed and prayed to dismiss this application.

6. In support of his submission, learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif l, wherein in paragraph No.40, it is held as under: "4O. The impugned order based on the inferences and surmises. in utter disregard of the statutory provision of the Act and in utter disregard of the mandate contained in Section 37 of the Act, and granting bail to the accused merely on the ground that the compliance of Section 52A rvas not done within reasonable time, is highly erroneous and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Since, the High Court has not considered the application of the respondent on merits and has also not considered the mandatory requirement under - Section 37(1)(b) of the Act, we deem it appropriate to remand the case to the High Court for deciding the bail application of the respondent afresh on merits and in act:ordance with law." 12024 SCC OnLine 5C 3848 { I 4 \ 7 . This Court, considering submissions made by both the learned counsel and reviewing the record, it is noted that the contention of the petitioners that the case is false, {ictitious, and fabricated, the case was registered without following the due procedure. However, the Additional Public Prosecutor opposes bail citing commercial quantity approximately 28.78 kgs of ganja. 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 1974),-' (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishabte for l{offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving 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 timitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (l) are in addition to 5 the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, L973 12 of 19741 or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail."

8. In view thereof, Section 37 of the ND|S Act mandates that .offences involving commercial quantities be non-bailable; requiring reasonable grounds to believe that tJle accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, t}lis Court is not satisfied that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are met. That apart, even as per the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau (supra), it was made clear that bail cannot not be granted to the accused if the due procedure, particularly, with respect to the statutory provisions of the Act, are not followed. Therefore, the Criminal Petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/. K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY' \ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The XIV Addl il/etropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayatnagar' 2. The Station House Officer, Hayatnagar Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate Co'tU

3. Two CCs,to the public prosecutor. High Court at Hyderabad. (Out) 4. One CC to SRI. c AN|L KTRAN KUMAR AOvocjte tOpUCl 5. Two CD Copies \ ItC'I'ST- s- HIGH COURT DATED: 0610312025 t I ORDER CRLP.No.2516 of 2025 THE S14 t oB iaJ !) 23 nnt ZW * oFsr-',l raHF:O , $( o ACCORDINGLY, THE CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED /) b >,6 1