Prosecutor High Court · 2025

Order

'l'he p lsent Criminal Petition is hled pra.yin1.; this Court to : rJ r rge the petitioner who is arrayed as ilcrrused No.3 in (lr rne No.348 of 2024 before Bhongir Rural (Rachakorrrle r Police Station, Yadadri Bhondir, regis.er,:d for the offen,:,:s punishable under Sections B(c) reird with Zo(b)(ii)(c) :rt t'l 29 of the Narcotic Drugs And Pslcho-ropic Substancr:s, r ,:t, 1985, (for short T\fDPSl on bail

2. The rrief facts of the case are that on October 2). )J24, at 12:0O hours, Sub-lnspector of I'olicc, Bhongir Rr r PS, along with his team, condu<:ted a vehicle check nee r J,,rgireddypally Chowrastha on the Bh,ln11i1 16 Chityal ro Er, At 13:30 hours, they intercepted two suspicious; c i r:i, one behind the other, coming from llh'rngir. Upon qr-re:;l ic r ing, the occupants disclosed therr narner; and voluntarih-c nfessed to transporting ganja in ,h eit MG Hector car. tl nsequently, 35.50 kg of ganja was seized from the poss( s.s :,n of petitioner and other accused. The 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No-258a of 2025 \ \ petitioner was implicated in the said case and was arrayed as accllsed No.3. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri Umesh Singh, 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 there is no prima facie evidence to establish the involvement of petitioner in escorting or transporting ganja, and the allegations made by prosecution are based solely on the confession of co-accused, which is inadmissible as evidence. He asserted that the petitioner is innocent, denies all allegations, and has been falsely implicated by the investigating agency, and that the role of the petitioner in the alleged offence is unclear, and the FIR does not reveal alny prima facie case against him. He asserted that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen, willing to cooperate with the investigating agency, and belongs to a respectable poor family. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Toofan Singh v. State of 7 r'l 3 SKS,J Crl P N(, 25l8 of 2025 Tamil Nad rr I , and prayed this Court to grant b:ril to the petitione- Ll rrllowing this criminal petition.

5.Onl lr,3 other hand, learned Additioral public Prosecutor' counsel ftrr IeCOVefy ,l - r ,l,rposed the submissions made by tlte , l :arned t-he petitioner stating that the quantrrm of r,n traband constitutes commercial quanti ty. I{e contenclcri tl rt releasing the petitioner on bail. coull l:ad to him comr:rit to dismiss, tL ing similar offences, as such, prayed tlie Court : criminal petition.

6. In s i. ,L)or[ of his submission, learned Actdi tional Public Prc,s.e rtor relied upon the judgment of the Hr rn,l_rle Supremr: I o r t in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kaship, wherein in ;z r agraph No.4O, it is held as under: ' 4 0 'lhe impugned order based on the i r le , nc.s5 and surmises, in utter c'j sr : lard of the statutory provision of the P.ct rr-.d in utter disregard of the mandate ccnr r ined in Section 37 of the Act, and 'zozt + scc r '? 2024 SCC OnLin€ t; t848 I I 4 SKS,J CrLP.No.25aa of 2O25 granting bail to the accused merely on the ground that tJle compliance of Section 52A was 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 maldatory requirement under Section 37(1Xb) of the Act, we deem it appropriate to remand the case to the High Court for deciding t}le bail application of the respondent afresh on merits and in accordance with law." 7 . Having regard to t.l.e riva,l submissions made and on going throqgh the material placed on record, it is noted that the police seized 35.50 kg of ganja, and the said contraband is huge commercial quantity. That being so, it is relevant to extract Sectio n 37 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under: "37. Offences to be cognizable ald non- bailable. -- ( 1) Notwithstanding arything -----------7 5 SKS,J Crt.F N r.2:.88 of 2025 cr n tained in the Code of Criminat Procedure. l' '3 (2 of l97fl,-(al every offencr: pr lishable under this Act shall bc :c:nizable; 1: no person accused of a-rr offence ;r rrishable for 1[offences under section 19 or r;e : ion 24 or section 2T A and a,lso fr;r of rnces involving commercial quantityl shall l>e released on bail or on his own bond ur itss- (il tt'Lc Public Prosecutor has been given an c,p ) )rtunity to oppose ttre application ftrr srr r release, and (ii) rvhere the Public Prosecutarr opposes the ap ication, the cou.rt is satisfied that there ar'( r-easonable grounds for believing that he is, l )t guilty of such offence ald that he is no1 likely to commit a_ny offence while orr l'11 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.2588 of 2025 (21 Tlne limitations on granting of bail specihed in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitalions undef 'the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 797 4) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail."

8. In view thereof, it is clear that Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that offences involving commercial quantities be non-bailable, requiring reasonable grounds to believe tire accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences ,i while on bail. Given the serious set of allegations ieveled against the petitioner with regard to his involvement in possession and transportation of 35.50 kg of ganja, this Court is not satisfied that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are met. Further, the inves'tigation in the case is not yet completed. Furthermore, grant of bail to accused Nos.l and 2 cannot be a ground for grant of bail to this petitioner. 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, ,,-/ To, 7 SKS,J (lrl.P.No 2sti8 of 2025 with resFec t.o the statutory provisions of the Act, are not followed. 'f I l:refore, the criminal petition lacks rnerLt and the sarne irs i : ltle to be dismissed.

9. Acccr< rngly, this Criminal petition is dismisse j Mis:,:l :rneous applications, if any pr:ndinq, shall stand clos e<1 SD/- K. AMMAJI ASSISTANl REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// t .EECTION OFFICER

1. The Princip al J x t".ial First Class Magistrate at Bhongir 2. The station l-lc. se officer, Bhongir Rural Police staticn, Rachakonda, Yadadri BhonS r

3. Two CCs to the ' I r rblic Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad ' 'OIJT) 4. One CC to Sll -lMESH SINGH Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copie: RC/PSI, HIGH COURT DATED: 07l0itt?025 ORDER CRLP.No.2588 ot 2025 aa ,:, ' ,- o -)o C) ? 3 liri:' 2t]25 ( ( I I \ I \:l -\: i ,.,. l i,r t_. i ACCORDIN(;LY, THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED -D1