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 Petitioners/ Accused A4 to A7 on regular bail in Cr. No. 17112025, P.S. Begumpet, Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, pending investigation/ trial This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri PORIKA VIKAS RAJ, Advocate for the Petitioners and SRI SYED YASAR MAMOON, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR on behalf of the Sole Respondent The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SI-'.iANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.9727 of 2O:2'; ORAL ORDER: Seeking the Court to enlarge lhe petitioners, r'ho arraycd as accused Nos.4 to 7 in Crime No.171 of 2025 of Le gumpet Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences pur ishable under Sections 8(c) read u.ith Section Zo(b)(ii)(c) and 29 ol ,larcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on bai , the present Criminal Petition is f rled.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.0.1.11 )25, the police received crcdible information that four inrlt,ziduals urere transporting ganja. The police intercepted the accused and recovered 81.15 kilograms of ganja from the possesslon of accused Nos- 4 to 7. The accused rcvcaled that they were lr e nsporting it lo Mumbai to sell it to needy cuslomers. The accuscci were arrested, and a case was registered against thcm.

3. Heard Sri P. Vikasraj, learned counsel appeari rg o:-r behalfof the petitioners as well as Sri Syed Yasar Mar roon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondcr t - State. 2 SKS,J Ctl.P.No.9727 of 2025

4. Learned counsel for the pctitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and that only 3O.58 kilograms of ganja were recovered from their possession. He further submitted that the petitioners have be en in judicial custody for the past 83 days anrl that thc police failed to compty wrth the mandatory procedures prescribed under Sections 42, 5O, and 57 of NDPS Act and that the petitroncrs are poor tribal citizens hailing from Odisha and also relicd upon the judgments rendcred in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadul and Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar2. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioners by allowing this crimrnal petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the [earned counsel for the petitioners stating that the quanti[i of contraband allegedly seized in this case amounts to 8 I . 15 kilograms, which constitutes a commercial quanti6/ under the lan,. He further submitted that the investigation is in progress and if the petitioners are released on bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the evidence and may threaten the witnesses. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. ' lzozols scc r ' lzotal s scc zz: 3 sKs,J ( t:1.P.Na.9727 of 2025

6. Considcring the submissions madc by bot r thc learned counsel and rcviewing the material available on re r rrd, it is noted that the conten lion ol lhe Iearned counsel for thr: 1 ,etitroners that thc petitioners have been in judicial custody lor'ir,r past 83 days and the case is false, flctitious, and fabricatrxl the case u,as registered without following the due procedur- Ho\\'ever, the Additional Public Prosecutor opposcs bail citir g commcrcial quantity weighing 81.15 Kgs of ganja was recor :red from the petitioners. At this stage, it is perlincnt to notc S: :lion 37 of the NDPS Act, rvhich reads as under: l \ "37. Offences to be cognzable and non-bail;rir e ([) Notrvithstanding anything contained in the (l dc of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 197a), -(al everr ,ffence punishable under this Act shall be cognizablc; (b) no person accused of ar-r offence punishi I le loi 1[offences under section 19 or sectron 24 or se<:t r n 27A and also for offences involving commercral quanr i r shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an oppo, L-r litl to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the apt) i ation, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable r1r tunds for believing that he is not guilty of such oflence z r I that he is not likely to commit any offence w.hile on bail (2) The limitations on granting of bail specilied ir r:lause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limi ltions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 12 of ( 741 ttr 1I I 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.9727 of 2O2S 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-bai1able, requiring reasonable grounds to belicve the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. Given the serious allegations against the petitioners, this Court is not satished 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 Criminai Petition is dismissed Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed SD/- AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER I I To, 1 The Xl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad, Hyderabad District 2 The Station House Officer, Begumpet Police Station, Begumpet, Hyderabad District

3. One CC to SRI PORIKA VTKAS RAJ Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies VM/PSL l HIGH COURT DATED: 2210812025 I ORDER CRLP.No.9727 of 2025 llll: St4 ,6' \ao k o t.) 7I lltil &t ,.\ ((''r' C) I i I I DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION