The High Court · 2025

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 enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.3 on bail in Crime No.01 of 2025, PS Cyberabad Narcotic Police StationTGANB, Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Mohammed Khaled, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Sole Respondent. The Court made the following ORDER: ,.) THE HONOURALE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJ,AIIIA CRIuII{AL PETITION I{o.9793 ot 2012ti ORDER: Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioreer who is arrayed as accused No.3 in Crime No'O1 of 2O2 o1'Cyberabad Narcotics Police Station, TG Anti- Narcotics Bureau, on bail' the present Criminal Petition is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 3td 1\pril 2025' P' Ramesh Reddy, Inspector of Police, Cyberabad tlarcotic PS' received credible information that Nigerian na -irlnals Ugwu lkechukwu @) Emma, Chukwu Ogbonna @ Big Jce' and others were engaged in illegal drug supply. A raidin6l team was formed, search proceedings were initiated, an'l during the raid, the accused Emma and Big Joe were found irr possession of 16.45 grams of cocaine and 52.29 grams of MDMA' along with laptops, pendrives, mobile phones, weighi:r11 machines' and related documents. Their voluntaqr statemerlts revealed their involvement in an international drug traJILc king network handled by one Divine Ebuka Suzee, with links tc' Nerv Delhi' the USA, and Nigeria, involving money trans fr:rs through 2 SEIir, Crl.P.Xo.9793 of 2[rrs (': various accounts and intermediaries, including co-accused Mohammed Mateen Siddiqui, who operated a money transfer business and admitted to facilitaLing transactions zrmounting to approximately Rs.6 crores. Mateen was caught with Rs.45,0OO/- meant for Emma. All three accused were arrested, contraband and items were seized, and the case was registered under Sections 8(c), 22(b), 22(cl,27A, and 29 of tJle NDPS Act, while Ebuka and another accused remained absconding.

3. Heard Sri Mohammed Khaled, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. lrarned counsel for the petitioner submitted that tlre petitioner was a pe[nanent residen[ of Hyderabad, running a licensed money transfer business under the name "Fine Multipurpose Centre" since 2O12 as per RBI guidelines, with proper licenses, tax returns, and records. He was arrested on O3.O4.2O25 and in judicial custody since O4.O4.2O25. He further submitted that no narcotic substance was recovered 3 SKS'J Crl.t.Io.9793 of 2025 from him and the alleged seizure of 16.45 grams of cocaine and 52.29 grams of MDMA was from the resiclence of co- accused A- I , with whom he had no connection r':51arding the contraband. The petitioner was alleged to hane facilitated money transfers, but all transactions were condrx:ted legally with proper KYC verification. He had no prior crirrinal record, deep roots in sociegr, and no risk of absconding or tampering with evidence.

5. [rarned counsel for the petitioner contencled that the prosecution itself admitted that Section 50 NDPS Act was not applicable as there was no personal recovery an'l that the alteged confessional statement was inadmisl;il:le under Section 23( I) oi the Bharaliya Sakshya Adhiniyanr, 2023, and no pima facie case under Sections 27A or 29 NI)I'S Act was made out, as there was no evidence of financing illicit trafficking or conspiracy. He further contended teat the twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act stood sal-isfred, the petitioner undertook to cooperate with the trial, and was ready to lurnish sureties. He was a heart patient with hy1>ertension, diabetes, and other ailments requiring constant care' The investigation was complete except filing of the ch:uge sheet, 4 sl(sJ Crl.P.Io.9793 of 2(f25 a)' and the only allegation was based on the confession of A-1 atd A-2, who had merely borrowed money from him under a valid license. F\rrttrer, similarly placed co-accused had already been granted bail. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that t]1e investigation is not yet completed, therefore, granting bail to the petitioner, at this stage, does not arise. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal pelition.

7. In the light of the submissions made by both the Ieamed counsel and upon a perusal of the material available on record, the main allegation against the petitioner is that he facilitated ttre Nigerians in transporting the amounts and took commissions from accused No. 1. Though the counsel for the petitioner submits that he had no connection with accused No. I , there are serious allegations against him. Further, although he contends that he is suffering from certain health problems, no supporting document has been filed before this 5 sKs,., Crl.P.No.9793 of 2orrS Court. He also claimed parity wittr accused Nos.l-2 ald 11, however, the allegations against them are not similar, and the quantity involved in the present case is 52.29 grans of MDMA and 16.45 grams of cocaine, constitutes a <:ommercial quantity. Moreover, as seen from the record, the investigation has not yet been completed. At this stage, tJris (lourt is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, and the petition is liable to be disrnissed.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismisr;ed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- It/I. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT RE ISTRAR q I ISECTIdN OFFICER To,

1. The Court of thc Sprecial lutlicial Firsrt Class Magistrate at L.B.Nagar', Ranga Reddy at }-lvclt'ra bacl.

2. The S.H.O., Cvhcrabad Narcotics P.S., TG Anti Narcotics B,ureau, Hyderabad. 3. One CC Moharnrnaecl Mattcn Siddi<1ui, Advocate (OpUq 4. The Statc o[ li'l.rrrgana, [le p. by Pubtic Prosecutor, High ],:urt at Hyde rabad (OU I )

5. Two CD Copit,s Chrk/gh \q- I 'i, o a ,a -i HE S I.i f- ( L 2 t{0ll M I o, \ SsPA'rcHeO * HIGH COURT DATED: 1310812025 ORDER: CRLP.No.9793 ot 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED. .uP@a &*