High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMI NAL PETITION NO: 76920F 2025 Between: Rathod Santhosh Sure, ( The respondent Police Mentioned The Name of the oetitioner/A3 as Santhosh r;ilil-S/; iathod llaruti' Aged 27 years occ' bli"l",.,'r"!'ir"iioi o.rlo +-rl]ialrrunairranoa' Enekpalle' Madak' Telansana ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED A'3 State AND The State of Telangana' Rep' by its Public Prosecutor' High Court For the State of Telangana at HYderabad' ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of B N S S: q''Yilo that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandu'"oiditJnot oicii'in'r d"tition' the High Court may be oreased to rerease tne pJiition"#"o't,-nrir in (c)2, to , co on cr.No.398/2025, ;;;"-;h"; Police Station sanga ReddY' This Petition cominq on for hearing' upon perusinq the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal p"titi"'."r.1"rp". n"i;"g il-,"'rroum"i't. of Sri RAVURI SAI SUMANTH ,Advocate t"t t'r*'i'"iiti"n"i 'nj the A;ditional Public Prosecutor Gt "; behalf of the sole ResPondent' The Court made the following: ORDER *--_ "B: Th Order on'b CS s ce e ti NN .7 92 of re n1 AS 2 a I I I i I t i I I i I ; : This Criminal petition is filed under Section 4g2 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhira, 2023 (for short, .BNSS) seeking anriciparory bail to the petitioner/accused No.3 in Crime No.39g of 2025 of patancheru police Station, Sangareddy District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w Section 20(bxir(q of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Acr, 19g5 (for shon .NDpS 2' The case of the prosecurion is that on 0g.05.2025 at about 04:OO p.m., on receipt of credible informatron regarding illegal transpon of d.ry ganja, the sub-Inspeoor of porice, Patancheru Police Station along with his sraff, proceeded to Murhangi Toll plaza and conducted vehicle check and apprehended accused Nos.1, 2,5 and5 and seized 106.g lgs of dryganja from them. Based on the same, the aforesaid crime Act). 2 was registered against the petitioner/accused No'3 and other accused forthe aforesaid offence' 3. Heard Mr. Ravuri Sai Sumanth, leamed counsel for the petitioner/ accused No.3 and Mr' Syed Yasar Mamoon' learned for the Additional Public Prosecutor appeanng respondent/State. 4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submined that the petitioner is no way concemed with the seizure of contraband and even according to the complaint, seizure panchanama and remand case diary the contraband was seized from the possession of accused Nos'1, 2, 5 and 6 only and based on their confession and also on the ground that the mobile phone of the petitioner was seized from the possession of accused No.5, the petitioner was falsely implicated in the present cr-ime and there are no allegatiors against the petitioner to connect him with the present crime and hence, the ingredients of the provisions of NDPS Act and the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act'ase not attracted against him' He further submined i t I l, I I I I I 7 3 that the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedenrs ancl he is readyto coope_rate with the investigation and abide bythe conditions as may be imposed by this Court ancl hence, praled for granr ol anticipatory bail.

5. Per santra,leamed Additional public prosecutor submimed that petitioner/accused No.3 has commiffed grave offence under the provisions of the NDPS Act and the police have seized 105.8 kgs of dry ganja, which is more rhan rhe commercial quantiry and the investigation is under progress and at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

6. Flavrng considered the rival submissions made by respecrlve parries and on perusal of the rrnterial available on record, it reveals that the police seized 106.g lgs of dry ganja, which is more rhan commercial quantity. The record reveals that accused Nos.1 to 7 and 16 hatched a plan to purchase dry ganja from accused Nos.12 to 15 at Andhra-Odisha Border and 4 they proceeded to AOB area oll two vehicles and purchased dry ganja from accus ed Nos.12 to 15 and 16 and proceeded to Kamataka to handover the purchased dry their destination i'e, gan)a to accused Nos.S to 11 and 17 and in'the meantime' the 08.05.2025. F{ence, the Police seized the contraband contention raised by leamed counsel for the petitioner that there are no allegations' much less specific allegations' levelled against the petitioner so as to attract the ingredients of the provisions of NDPS Act is untenable' At this stage, it 1s Pertinent to note Section 37 of the 7 NDPS Acq which reads as wrder: "37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable' (1) Notwithstanding anyhing contained in the Cpde of Criminal Procedure' 1973 Q of t97+);- (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognzable; (b) no Pelson accused of afi offence punishable for lfoffences under section 19 or section 24 or secuon 27L arrd also for r5&rr14'*<rz / 5 ,.1 offences involving commercial quantityl shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless_ (i) the Public prosecuror has.been given an opponuniry ro oppose the appiication for such release, and (ii) where the public prosecuror opposes the application, rhe courr is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (Z) The limitations on granring of bail specified rn clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the C-ode of Criminal procedure, 1973 Q of 1.974) or any other law for the time beine in force on granring of bail.', I ,

8. Therefore, Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that offences involving commercial quanriries be non_bailable and no person accused of such offences can be granted bail provided rhere are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit funher offences while on bail. Since the allegations levelled against the 6 petitioner are serious in nature, this Court is not satisfied that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are met. Therefore, the Criminal Petition lacls merit and the same is iiable to be dismrssed.

9. Accordingly, this Giminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. ; i I l I

1. SD/- K.BHAVANI SWAMY AS TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate ( Excise & Prohibition) At SangaReddy' 2. The Station Hou.e ottice"i't"tiJ* Ftr"e Station'Sanga Reddy District' ; d;A]; sninnvunisnr sutunurH' Advocate.[oPUC] 4 Two CCs to Public Pt"t;;;; High Court for the State of Telangana at Hvd erabad[OUT] 5. Two CD oples AR/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:02t07t2O25 ORDER CRLP.No.7692 ot 2025 ir.i'- S i4- aL 0 3 sEP 2025

1., \r.1 o \ I I i I I i I I I I : I I I I I DISMISSING THE CRL.P >{-