Narcotlcs Control Bureau v. Kashif

Petition under Sections 480 & 483 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner lAccused on Regular bail in cri u.P No 1622t2025 in Crime No.7612024 of PS ExciseAmeerpet, Hyderabad orr the file of Sessions Judge, Hyderabad; This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri KADEKA SAI PRIYA, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, Additional' Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent ; The Court made the following ORDER: THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENfVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.2975 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, tsNSS') by the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.l, seeking bail in Crime No.76 of 2024 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections B(c) read with Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').

2. Heard Ms.K.Sai Priya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

3. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 78.10.2024 at about 01.30 p.m., beside Daddu ka Biryani Hotel, Road No. 11, Banjara hills, Hyderabad, accused Nos. 1 to 3 were tound in grossession of 21 .66 grams of MDMA.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the investigation agency has not followed the mandatory 2 I procedure prescribed under the provisions of Section 52-A of the .Act. The petitioner was falsely implicated in this case and there are no specific allegations against him. The police have not seized the contraband from the petitioner' The investigation agency relied upon ttre statements of the witnesses who are the stock witnesses and they are not the eyewitnesses.

5. She further submitted that the petitioner is suffering with health problems and if the petitioner is released on bail, he will cooperate with the investigation and abide by the conditions which are going to be imposed by this Court. She also submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 19 .1O.2O24. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner contravened the provisions of the NDPS Act and the quantity of contraband seized was

21.66 grarns of MDMA, which is a commercial qualtity and the investigation is under progress. Further the petitioner hled the present criminal petition on the very same grounds mentioned in the earlier bail application i.e., Criminal \ \ 3 Petition No.1622 of 2025, which was dismissed by this Court on. 18.02.2O25. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 7 . Having considered the rival submissions macle by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the police seized 21.66 grams of MDMA, u'hich is a commercial quantilv.

8. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the police did not follow the mandatory procedure as prescribed under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, the petitror-rer is entitled for grant of bail is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the provisions of the NDPS Act, in "Narcotlcs Control Bureau v. Kashif (Crl. Appeal No.5544 of 2o.241", held as follows: "39. The upshot of the above discussion may be summarized as under: (4 The provisions of NDPS Act are required to be interpreted keeping in mind the scheme, object and purpose of the Act; as also the impact on the society as a whole. It has to be interpreted literally and not liberaliy, which may ultirnately frustrate the object, purpose arld Preamble of the Act. I I I , I 4 (i') While considering tl e 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 lrndings as mandated in Section 37 is sine qua non is known for granting bail to the accused involved in the offences under the NDPS Act. (iii) The purpose of insertion of Section 52A laying down the procedure for disposal of seized Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, was to ensure the early disposal of the seized contraband drugs and substances. lt was inserted in 1989 as one of the measures to implement and to give effect to the International Conventions on psychotropic substances. the Narcotic drugs and psychotropic substanccs. (i") Sub-section (2) of Section 52A lays down the procedure as contemplated in sub-section (1) thereof, and 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 tnal on that ground alone. (.1 Any procedural irregularity or illegality found to have been committed in conducting the search and seizure during the course of investigation or thereafter, would by itsell not make the entire evidence collected during the course of investigation, inadrnissible. The Court would have to consider all the circumstances and frnd out whether any serious prejudice has been caused to the accused. I i l I t I \ I 5 (vi) An1. lapse or delay in compliance of Section 52A by itself would neither vitiate the trial nor would entifle tllr: accused to be released on bail. The Court will have Lo consider other circumstances and the other primary evidence collected during the course ofl investigation, as also the statutdry presumption permissible under Section 54 of the NDpS Act.

9. It is pertinent to mention 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 leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature and this court is not satisfied that conditions for gralting bail under Section 37 are met, especially the investigation is under progress.

10. It is also relevant to place on record that Criminal Petition No. 1622 of 2O2S filed by the petitioner seeking bail was dismissed by this Court on 1g.O2.2O25 and this Court does not iind any changed circumstances from the dismissar of the earlier bail petition to this petition. Therefore, the criminal petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11 Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismjssed. ,/ 6 C As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications' if any' pending in this petition stand closed' SD/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY AS STANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER The lll Addltional. CJM, Nampatty, Hyderabad The Superintendent, Central Jail, Chanchalguda The Station House Officer, Ameerpet p.S.(EXCISE), Hyderabad One CC to SRl. KADEKA SAt PRtyA Advocate tOpUCl Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad (OUT) Two CD Copies To, 1 I 2 3 4 5 6 Vsmll)S I w HIGH COURT DATED:12103{2025 I 1 HE STA 14, \ !-l I o o \\r^ \,2., 2 I tttnv 2925 4 + ', r, A rf.H c i-) -:--=:.:; ORDER CRLP.No.2975 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION @ EK b\