High Court · 2025

Petition uncler Section 4gO & 483 of BNSS Act. 2C23 D,aving rhai r.r ihe circ u;-11913 pa"r stated rn the r,/ernor-andum of Grounds of crrrrriirar petrtron. thr: High court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/ accusec No. r on baii :r: C rime No. 1 81 1 of 2024, registereC urrth the station House officer of p.S Madhapur This petition coming on for hearing, upon perustng the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri M RATHAN STNGH, Advocate for the petrtioner and Mr. syed yasar Mamoon, Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2823 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') by the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.1, seeking bail in Crime No.181 I of 2024 of Madhapur Police Statron, Cvberabad Commissionerate, for the offences lrunishable under Sectrons 8(c) read u,ith Sections 22(c'1, 27 and .).') r-rl thc \arcorii: Drr-rgs and Ps,r'chotropic Substances A n r('n( llnc n t AcL. 200 I (lbr sltor-t 'N DITS Ac t'). I llcir:ri \lr'. \1 llrllt:rn Sinqh, lL.trrrrecl coLtnscl lor ll'rc i)! iit()it('i lLrrrl i\lr S,.rcl YiLslri !1:lrloon. lcirrncrl Adtlitronal l'lLirlrr I'rost < rIi()r i.tpl)L,iu-iltp lirr rcspor-rrlclI SlaLc 3 The case of prosecution in brief is rhat the pctitioner was arrested and charged \4,ith possessing and selling of prohibited substances, i.e., 18 grams of MDMA, 7 grams of Indian Charas and 1 gram of Kush. Allegedly, the petitioner was selling these substances while keeping the profits for himself. Based on his aileged confession, he u,as remanded and sent to judicial ('ustodv aldhg-''vith accused No.2, on 30.11.2024. 2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the investigation agency has not complied the provisions of Section 52-A of the NDPS Acr and tl-re alleged contraband \\'as nor seized solelv from the possession ol the petitioncr :tnd thc sanr,, is gross violation of maldalon' provisions lrtdcr tltr: Nl)PS ,Ar'r He further submiLred rhar tlterc is no clocuntent:tn. ltroof tira.L the petitioner rented FIat No.303 and rhat rhere are shortcomings in the ir-rt,estrgation, medical reporL:-rrtrl remand case diary. He also submitted that enrire investigatron rs completed except filing of charge sheet. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 30. 1 1.2024. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail.

5. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments; (i) Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradeshl; (ii) Union of India vs. Shri Shiv Shanker Kesarir.

6. Per cotTtra, lcantcd Additronal lrublic l)rosr.r.Lilor submitted []-rat the pcrrtiorrcr co n r.t-:r,,,r'tt crl tltr' provLsions ri ' ,t IR 202i Suprerne Clourr 5 I6.l I2oo: etn scw 59.15 {* \. J NDPS Act and the quantity of contraband seized from the petitioner u'as I B grams of MDMA, which is a commercial (lLL:lllLiL\ atlcl L]re invr:stigartion is uncler progress. Further the lri'tition.. r lik'd thc l)rcsenL < rinrinal pctition on the very serme ?rlL:nrls lrcirtrorrc<i iu the crLrlrrr bail application i.e Criminal i)('r:r.1r \o l.l.1lr o1 2025. r,, liiclr,,ras clisrnissecl l;-r this Clourt on

13.02.2025. Thcrefore, the petitioner rs not entitled for grant of b:,ri1.

7. Having considered the rrval submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the police seized 18 grams of MDMA, 7 grams of Indian charas and 1 gram of Kush from the petitioner and the said contraband is commercial quantity.

8. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the pciitio:rer Lhat .r.s the police did nor lollou, the mandatory prccecllrrc as pre'scribed under Section 52 A oi the NDPS Act, Lhc petitioncr. is en[irled for grant oi barl is concerned, the l lL.,n l:ll r\pr:r C'orrrL, rr hrle corrsrde ling the pror istons of the \ Dl)S ,\t L. ril "Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif (Crl. Appeal No.5544 of 2024l," , hclcl as lbllou's l (i) (i1) "39. The upshot of lhe above discussiot.t mav be summarized as ll nd er: The provisions oi NDPS Act are required to be intcrpreted kecping in mind thc sclrcme. objcct arlrl purpose of the Act, as also the impact on the socictv as a whole. lt has to be interpreted litera.lly aIId not liberally, which may ultimately frustrate the object, purpose ald Preamble of the Act. While considering the application for bail, the Court must bear in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which are mandatory in nature. Recording of findings as mandated in Section 37 is sine qua non is known for granting bail to the accused invoh'ed in the offences under the NDPS Act. (iil) The purpose of insertion ol Sectlon 52A layrng dou'n the procedurc lor disposal of seizcd \arcoric Drttgs ilr.td Psvcholrol>ic Stll)sti1tl( (s. i';rtlv drsposal ol lh. sc:zt'd contrah:iilri rlrllqs irllcl lrls(r ils r)ll( ,)l Lil(' substanc cs. Jl $';rs tl-tst It(-.i lll measures to imple merlt al.l(l to gir c t'1ft'ct trl thc International ConYentiot.ts on psvchotropic substar'lccs. the Narcotjc drugs atrd psrchotropic strbstatl<'cs. \\-as lr) i'rlstltc (i") Sub-sectron (2) of Section 52A lays dor.r'n the procedure as contemplated in sub-section (1) thereof, ard any lapse or delayed compliance thereof would be merely a procedural irregularity which would neither entitle the accused to be released on bail nor would vitiate the trial on tJrat ground alone. (\ ) ('il An-r 1:roce<lrrral irregularit5 or illcgatit-l found to rave bcen commrtted rn conductrng the search and seizure during the course of investigation or thereafter, would by itself not make the entire evidence collected during the course of investigation, inadmissible. The Court would have to consider a]l the circumstances and frnd out whether any serious prejudice has been caused to the accused. Any lapse or delay in compliance of Section S21\ by itself r,r'ould neither vrtiate the trial nor tvould entitk: the ircL'Lrsr'rl to llc rr.lcirsccl orr ltliil. 'flr(, Clour.t rviil lritre to (ol.rst(l(,1 otltcr (.trcLlnlslanct s :utrl thc other prirnary t'r tclt ir, ,: collt'r'ieri iltrlrnq tht' coursc of in\CSLlqaLiulr. a1S .riso LLtc :-lirl iLtoll pr(,sLunDLiolt ltcrmissrblc rltdcr .- ,Ir.,r -- .t tl,t \DI)S.{, t t' li is l)(,rL:I(.1)t r-,) nt(,1-'111()| Sec.L:o|t .17 Oi t;te Ni)pS ACt, mitrldates that rtl'I'ences invoiving commercial quantities be non_ bailable, reqllirlng reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikell to commit further offences rvhile on bail. Hence, since the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature and this court is not satisfied that conditions for granting bail under Section 3T are met, especially the investigation is under progress.

10. It is aiso relevant to place on record that Criminal petition Nr,. 1.146 ol- 2025 fik_'d by rhe petirioner seekir-rg bail u,as clisrrtrssed llr tl-,is CoLri-r orr 13.O2.2O2a:rnd this CoLlrt does ltot 6 find any changed circumstances from the dismissal of the earlier bail petition to this petition. Therefore, the criminal petition lacks merit and the same is 1iable to be dismissed. I 1. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if anv. pcrrding in this petitior-l sranci c'los<:d SD/- P PADMANABHA REDDY DEPUTY REGISTRAR I/TRUE COPYi/ SECTI OFFICER To, 1 The X Addl. Metropoliran lvlagrstrate Kukatpally at Prashanth Nagar, Cyberabad.

2. The Station House Officer, Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. (OUT) 4. One CC to SRI M RATHAN SINGH Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies RC/PSI, HIGH COURT DATED: 12103i2025 ) ORDER CRLP.No.2823 ot 2025 c o t 1tt:- rj T4 16' ( > a 2 0 itiY 2[25 D€sp,1r cse9 * Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is Dismissed lD