The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482(2) ol Cr.P.C and 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 Petitioners/accused No.'1 on bail under mandatory provision in FIR No.48/1/4lzl24lNCBlHZU he has in jail since 195 days in Chanchalguda Central Prison Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Srinivasa Rao Busi, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri P Shashi Kiran, counsel on behalf of the Respondent. The Gourt made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENTVASRAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.6346 of 2025 ORDER: l'his ( r iminal Petition is hled under Sections 48C and 483 of thc Bharirrir a Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for sh ort, 'BNSS') b1' the pctitroner, u'ho is arrayed as accused No.1, seeking bail in F.No.48/ I l4 t2024 INCBIHZU of Narcotics Control Bureau, Hyclerabad Zone, rcgistered for the offence punishable under Sectiorrs li(c) r'eacl riith Section 22(c),27A,28 and 29 of the Narcotic I)rlrgs and I)svchotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinaller referred to as,'N[)PS Act'1

2. He:rrci iVIr. EJ. Srir-rivas Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, ancl Mr. l). Shashi [(irat-r, leanted counsel for the responde nt

3. 'l'he cirsc ol prosccution in brief is that on 22.09.2024, tlne Sub lnspector of l)olice, Narcotics Control Buream, Hyderabad Zone, on receiving inlirrmation that the petitioner IS tra lficking a substantial qLlanrLt) ol' AJprazolam to Medak, via Hyderitbad route in a Maruthi Suzuki Ertiga Car bearing No.TS O7 EV 5557, he along q,ith stail ilrt('rccptcd the vehicle before entering the ltaikal Toll Plaza on Jarlcherla, Shadnagar. On enquiry, the driver of the car, namely Thodcti Krishna, ald the petitioner confessed about 2 trafficking of alprazolam and 6.03 kgs. were seized from them under a cover of a panchanama. Hence, registered the present complaint.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offence and he was falsely implicated in this case as accused No. 1. He further submitted that the petitioner was arrested ot 22.09.2024 and since then he has been in judicial custody. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer has not filed the complaint within the statutory period. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for grant of statutory bail The petitioner is aged about 75 years and suffering with old-age ailments and he will appear before the Court below and also abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court. The petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents. Therefore, he prayed to release the petitioner on bail.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the bail petition and submitted that the petitioner has committed a grave offence and 6.03 kgs. of Alprazolam was seized from his possession, which is a commercial quantity. The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation fried complaint on 19.03.2025 uide SR.No.1453 of 2025 before the concerned Court within the mandatory period of 18O days. Hence, the contention raised by the learned counsel for 7 _) the petitioncr that the lnvestigating Officer has not filed the complaint u.rthrn thc stipulated period and that the petitioner is entitled lbr r,ranl of statutory bail is not tenable undr:r law. He further slLbrnil tecl rhat the petitioner is arrayed as an accused in similar crimt uide COR No.24O l2oll-12 of euthbullapur Excise Police Statiorr, registered lor the offence under Sectic,n g(c) read Ir,irh 22(c) ol the NDPS Act. Therefore, as per Sectioo 37 of the NDPS Ac1, tlre petitioner is not entrtled for grant of bai1.

6. Having cor.rsiclr:red the rival submissions ma,le by the rcspecti'e 1ti,-ties ur'r<1 aftcr perusal of the murterial available on record, it revcals tl-rat the police seized 6.03 kgs. of Alprazolam from the petitioner', r,i.hich is a commercial quantity. Even a,:cording to the pror.ision s of NDIrS Act, 5 grams is small quantity and more thal I O0 grrrrn s is a commercial quantity. The record further reveals that the pcritioner is an accused in COR No.24Ol2OIl_12 of Quthbullapur- l:lxc ise Police Station, registered for the offe:nce under Sectio.r B(c) reacl *'ith 22(c) of the NDpS Act. The peti:ioner was arrested on 22.09.2024. It is also specifically averrecL that the InvestigatinEi ()fficer filed complaint vide sR No. r4s3 of 2o2s against the per itioner on r9.o3.2o2s before the concerned court within the marrrtatory period of 1g0 days i.e., one day prior to expiry 4 of statutory period. At this stage, it is pertinent to note Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under: "37. Offences to be cognizabie and non-bailable. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Codc of Criminal Procedure, Ig73 (2 ot 19741,--(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for 1[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) thc Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunrty to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Pubtic Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he id not likely to commit any offence whiie on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 197 4l or any other law for the timc being in force on granting of bail." 7 . [n view thereof, Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that offences invoiving commercial quantities be non-bailabie, 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 satislied that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 of \\ \\ \ ) the NDPS Act are met B. It is irlso pertinent to mention here that tbe petitioner approachcd rhis Court and filed Crl.p.No.4539 of 2O2S for grant of regular bail by raising the very same grounds and this Court dismisse<l th,- 511*. on 22.O4.2025. Therefore, this Corrrt does not find any ch:rnged circumstances to grant bail in fa.sour of the petitioner.

9. Accord inglr,, tl-re criminal petition is dismissed Miscellrrnerous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// sEcnoJ6FFICER To, Hvderabad (OUT)

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate' Shadnagar T-own i. il; ;AiJn House officer-iarcotic Control Bureau' Hvderabad Z'one 3. Two CCs to the puOtic piosecutor' High Court for the State of Te'angana at a ?,tffiilt'"ii.* central Prison, chenchalguda' Hvderabad (By speed s. b"L'cc to Srr Srinivasa Rao Busi' Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies post) ADK,/PSL 4(E-t f-o s.: \. \ ) a-( I -:' ./ ,.',',, ,,\,- .+-y'/ -':- HIGH COURT DATED:0710512025 ORDER CRLP.No.6346 of 2025;' \ DISMISSING THE CRLP h) W