The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Station House Officer, Kulsumpura police Station, Rep by Public Prosecutor. High Court, Hyderabad. ...Respondent Petition under Section 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 release the PetitioneriA3 on bail pending enquiry in FIR No 31t2O25 on the file of the ll Addl. Sessions Judge at Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon. perusing the lVtemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. VIpLAV SIMHA REDDY, learned counsel representing Sri G SINDHU, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr, Syed Yasar Mamoon, the Additional public prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER i I I i ,7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITIO N No.6636 of2025 ORDER: . This Criminal Petition is hled under Sections 4g0 and 4g3 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short .BNSS) seeking bail to the petitioner/acgused No.3 in Crime No.31 of 2025 on the file of the p.S. Kuisumpura, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections B(C) read with 2O(b)(ii)(C) read with 27 (A) read with 29 of dne Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short .NDpS ActJ.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on lg.O2.2O2S at 9.30 A.M. on credible information, Detective Inspector of police, Kulsumpura along staff panchas, clues team incharge intercepted suspected car and apprehended accused Nos.2 to 4 and on enquiry they revealed that at the instance of A1, they are transporting 16O Kgs of ganja from Bhadrachalam and the police seized 160 Kgs of ganj a from the car dickey. Basing on the same, Crime No.31 of 2O25 was registered.

3. Heard Mr. Viplav Simha Reddy, learned counsel representing Mrs. G. Sindhu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed , 2 Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4. Le arned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the offence and he was falsely implicated in the above said crime, basing on the confession statement given by accused No. 1. He further submitted that the police have not placed any iota of evidence nor made any allegation that the petitioner is having relation with accused No. I and also have not produced any call data. He further submitted that the Police without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under the provisions of the NDPS Act, seized the contraband. He further submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 19 .O2.2O25 and since then the petitioner was in judicial custody and material part of the investigation is completcd except for filing of the charge sheet and he is not having any other criminal antecedents. He further submitted that the petitioner shall abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court, and he is ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner and other accused have committed grave \^* ''r 3 offence under the provisions of NDPS Act and the police seized the contraband i.e., 16O Kgs of ganja, which is more than commercial quantity and the investigation is under progress, hence, at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after peiusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the police seized 160 kgs of ganja, which is commercial quantit5r. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecu[or, the investigation is under progress and the charge sheet has not tjeen filed. At this stage, it is pertinent to note Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under: \ \ "37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminai Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),-- (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) 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 satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not I L 4 guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specifred in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 19741 or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail." In view thereof, Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that

7. offences involving commercial quantities be non-bailable, requiring reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guiity and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. Since the allegations leve1ed against the petitioner are serious in nature, this Court ig not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the criminal petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd- S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO s TANT REGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The State ll Addl. Sessions Judge at Hyderabad. i. ih; ivl ilditional Chief Judicial Magistrate' at Hyderabad' 5. rn" Strtion House Officei, Kulsumpula Police Station' Hyderabad' +. On" CC to Sti. G Sindhu, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to the puotic piosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana at . Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD CoPies

6. GPJgh \q- /> .HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 610O12025 -1. /a/.\ i' ) n -1a:.-':-:'':.: ---\ ,(: ((' l' c.\ .d'\' 30JUt zffi -.\r,r rc \.1! c ORDER CRLP.No.6636 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION q cos"b Vt-.Y^f