The High Court · 2025

Petitron under Section 480 and 483 of BNSS, praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the petitioner on bail pending investigation, enquiry and tnal in Crime No. B5/2025 of Burgampahad Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C Sharan Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SU.,,IA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9642 OF 2I),}5 ORDER: This cr-iminal petition is flled under -'ir: rtion 483 of Bharatil.a Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 lfor s I )rr 'BNSSJ by thc petitioncr/ Accused seeking regular bail in c r lnection with Cr.No.SS ol 2025 of Burgampahad Police Stat r n, Elhadradri Kothagudenr District. The offences allegcd ^gr.i,,. arr: under Sr.'ctions 8(c) r/w.20 (b)(ii)(c) and 29 o1 \ rrcotic Dr-ugs ,h. petltiorler and Psychotropic Substances Act, i985 (for short 'IDPS ActJ.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on :l r.03-2O25, at around 12:00 hours, at Sammakka Sarail :a Gaddelu, Burgzrmpahird Villagc, the complainant ar r{ I his staff apprehcnderl accused Nos.2 and 3 while thev u't::r iransporting garrja in :r Maru[i car bearing registration No. 'l I -08 .]Q-296O and seized 121.140 kgs of ganja in lhe presenc.r rl mediators. Hor,r,ever, ac(--Lrsed No.2 confessed that earlier ire, , tong with his friends, i.e. , accused Nos. 1, 5 to 7, had transp( r _e d ganja on sevcral occasions and they were apprehended b1. t re police and sent to jail in r.arious cases at different police sri trons. In the present case, on 22.O3.2025, the petitioner/ accu s:: t No.3, along 2 ' \^.ith accused Nos.2 and 5 to 7, had gone to Motu, Kalimela of Odisha State in a Baleno car- and purchased ganja from one Bheema-accused No. 10. On the ncxt day morning, accused Nos. l, 4 to 7 , along u.ith the petitioner/ accused No.3, transported the ganja across the Godavari River using the boat of accused No.9 and reached Vinjaram, where they arranged the ganja packets in the car dickey. Further, accused No. 1 instructed accused No.2 to transport the ganja to Yellandu X Road along with the pe titioner/ accused No.3, stating that the othcrs would reach there later- Accordingly, accused No.2 and the pctitioner/ accused No-3 proceeded towards Yellandu X Road in the said Baleno car. However, while they reached near Sammakka Saralamma Gaddelu at Burgampahad, the police apprehended them. Basing on the confession and seizure panchanama, the police registered the case against the accused for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, iearned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent - State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent of the sard offences and he has no role in purchase of ganja. He was just a traveler in the said car and II 3 had no knou,ledge of presence of ganja in the c:l . He further submitted tl-rat the police checked only one pn: :et out of 55 packcts and there is no material [o show that th ] remerining 54 packets contained ganja. Further, all the u t .ncsses \\. ere examined and investigation is almost completed ts ln jail lrom 22.O3.2025. The petrtloner lhe petitioner t ndertakes to cooperate rvrth the investigation and also a ride by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. As such, praved to grant bail to thc petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Pullic Prosecutor opposecl bail on the ground that 121.4O kgs of gri: L.;a rvas seizcd from A.2 and A.3. There are two cases pendil ii I against this petitioner, he is a habitual offender and if he is r,: :ased on bail, he may commit similar offences again. A. 10 ar c A. t 1 in tl-tis case arc still absconding. As such, prayed this Cc .rrt t,o dismiss this bail application.

6. Considerrng the submissions made by I he respective counsel ancl the material placed on record, the p:..itioner herein is A.3 and the allegations against him are thal l-re along with other accuscd transported 55 packets of ganja ', eighing about l2l.l4} kgs in Baleno Car which is a comm,: cial quantity. Further, petitioner has previous crime history. A, this stage, it 4 n is pcrtinent to note Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and the same reads as under "37. Offenccs to be cognizable ancl non bailable (1) Notwithstanding anything containcd in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 12 of 19741,-- (a) every offence punishable undcr this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an o{fence punishable for 1[offences under section ]9 ot s<rctiou 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercral quantityl shall be released on bail or on his orvn bontl unless-- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Pubtic Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied tl]at there are reasonable grounds tor believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while 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 Crimrnal Proccdure, 1973 12 ot I97 4) or anl othcr lau' for the time being in force on granting of bail.' [n 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 5 guilty an(l unlikely to commit further offences s'I lle on bzril. lrl thc lacts ancl circumstitnces of the case on hanc, this Courr is not salisficcl rhat corrditions lor granting bail r.rtl:':r St:ctrotl 37 arc mct. 'l'l-rough petitioner is in jail front 22.O3.2O)5, considcritrg his past crLmc history, this Court rs r ot i:lclinccl to grant bail and thc samc is liable to be dismissecl.

8. Accordingll', the Crrminal Petition is dismisr;, d. Misccllzrucous petitions, pending, if any, shaU ; and closc<l SD/- A.PRATHIMA I]{:PUTY REGISTRAR G //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judicial First Class Magrstrate, Bhadrachalam 2. The Special Sessions Judge for the Trial of Cases unde Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act-cum-l Additional Session s Judge, Kothagudem

3. The Station House Officer, Burgampahad Police Statio r Bhadradri Kothag udem

4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State )f Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. One CC to Sri C Sharan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Cop es ABK,?SL ( c J o o ,1 f€ 2 ll il011 ztfli , ,.\ * D,-.", HIGH COURT DATED: 25108t2025 ORDER CRLP.No.9642 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION q \l