The High Court · 2025

_ by ls Public Prosecutor, High Court at GHATKESAR Petition under section 480 & 483 of BNSS Act, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in Crime Z2 of 2OZS, P.S Excise Ghatkesar. ...Respondent This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr LAMBA SAI KUMAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and NIr SYED YASAR MAtvtOON, the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9558 OF 2025 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed by the petitione-r/A.4seeking regular bail in connection '*,ith Cr.No.72 of 2025 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Ghatkesar. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 8 (c) rlw.2O (b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (lbr short'NDPS Act').

2. The brief facts of the case are that on L9.O5.2O25 between

5.OO p.m. and 8.00 p.m, near Ghatkesar To11 Plaza, the police intercepted a four wheeler vehicle bearing No.KA l9 M 2167 in u,hich the petitioner along r,vith other accused tt'ere travelling. On search of the vehicle, the police found 29 bundles of dry ganja weighing approximately 53.88 Kgs, in brown tape wrapped packets and kept in the boot area of the vehicle. It is further aLleged that the petitioner and other accused werc) acting at the instructions of one of the absconding accused who had instructed them to purchase and transport the contraband from Bhadrachalam through various toll routes up to Adilabad. 2 n Based on the confession of accused the contraband was seized in the presence of panchas and report q'as filed.

3. Hearcl Sri L.Sai Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon; lehrned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent - State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case basing on the confession statement of co-accused. The petitioner is neither o\ /ner nor driver of the crime vehicle and he has no role in procuring or selling the substance. He also contended that no recovery is made from the petitioner herein and the only allegation is that he was found in the company of others in the crime vehicle. Further, the father of petitioner passed away recently and he is only male member to look after his family. Petitioner has no criminal antecedents and is a law abiding citizen and he undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail on the ground that the petitioner was found in possession of contraband and the same was seized from A.1 to /r:i,Ea 3 A.5. Furthr:r, the seized contraband is a commercial quantit5r and the pelitioner herein is a resident of Bidar, Karnataka State, and if bail is granted, it may become dilficult for the investigatirLg officer in concluding the investigaticln and he rnay commit sirnilzrr offences. As such, prayed this Corrrt to dismiss this bail application.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by both the counsel etnr,l the material on record, it is seen that i)etitioner is a resident of Kzrrnataka State and the contraband seized in this case is a htrgr: commercial quantity and the same u,as recclvered from A.1 to A.5. At this stage, it is pertinent to noLe Section 37 of the NDPII Act, and the same reads as under: "37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in tlre C<rde of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 19741,-- (a) every offence punishable under this Act shzrll be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for l[offences under section 19 or section 24 ctr 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 sr_rch release, and E r} 4 (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisf,red that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit an-y offence while on bail. (2) The lirnitations on grantirlg of bail spc<:ified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 19741or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail."

7. In view thereof, Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that offences involving commercial quantities be non-bailable, requiring reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, this Court is not satisfied that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are met. Therefore, the Criminal Petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD'. C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER To, p

1. The l-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist' at LB.Nagar Z. The Station House Officer, Proh. & Excise Station House Officer, Ghatkesar 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to Mr. LAMBA SAi KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] s Two CD CoPies HIGH COURT DATED: 1410812025 ORDER CRLP.No.9568 ot 2025 o({ .f tlE Sl{ it*" t o 04t{0lJ ffi o * ., c lio,.1iC\ Accordingly, this Griminal Petition is Dismissed q ,$