The High Court · 2025

Petrtron under Section 480 & 483 OF BNSS prayrng that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crrminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in Crime No. 166 of 2025 of Golconda Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 8(c) rlw 22(c),27,27( ), and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, considenng his medical condition and that of his parents. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10398 OF 2025 Between: -Caste- Prem Upadhya @ Prem, S/o Venkatesh Upadhya. Ag9 29 years (DOB Hindu, Occ lT Employee (Teclr It/ahindra), Rlo 2-2- 12.08 1995), 6471140, Kashyap Ntlayam, Central Excise ColcnT, Bagh Amberpet, Amberpet. Hyderabad - 5000'13, Telangana. Ph. No. 6103443770 ...PETITIOIIER/ACCUSED NO.5 AND The State of Telangana, Through Station House Officer Golconda Police Station, Hyderabad, Represented by Public Prosecutor lligh Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. ...RESPON ]ENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 480 & 483 OF BNSS p raying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/ A5 or bail in Crime No. 166 oI 2025 of Golconda police Station, Hyderabad, for the of'ences under Sections B(c) r/w 22(c),27,27(/\),29 NDPS Act These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitions and upon hearing the argunents of Sri PORIKA VIKAS RAJ, Advocate for the Petitioners in both the Ct-Ps and SRI SYED YASAR MAMOON the Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent in both the CRLPS. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER : I I I ! I I I l 1 i i I I i THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.1O31O AND 10398 OF 2025 COMMON ORDER: These criminal petitions are hled under Section 48O and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2O23 (for short 'BNSSJ by the petitioners/A.4 and A.5 respectivclv seeking regular bail in connection with Cr.No-166 of 2025 of Golconda Police Station, Hyderabad. The olfences alleged against the petitioncrs arc under Sections 8(c) r/w. 22(c), 27, 27 (A) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act).

2. The facts of the case are that on 22.07.2025 on credible information that some drug peddlers belonging to Hyderabad and Mumbai are involved in drug peddling at an isolated place behind Hanuman Temple Alijapur road, Golconda, to supply cocaine, the police conducted raid and found A. 1 to A.7 at the said place. On enquiry, they confessed that they are purchasing cocaine from foreigners and seized 192 grams of cocaine from them along rvith their cell phones under cover of panchanama. '/ ./ -t/ 2 Basing on the c:omplaint given, the case was regis;t(rred against the accused fbr the above offences

3. Hcard Sri P.Vikasra-j, k:arned counscl lor ll-rr: rctttlorlers ll both the criminnl petitions and Sri Syed Yasar Martncon' learncci Adclitional Publit: Prosecutor appearing on behail cf respondent S tate.

4. The cont,:ntion ol learned counsel for the ['ctitr(rne rs is that petitioners are ir-rnocellt of the said offences ll-rat only 40 grams ol cocait'tc rvas seized from A.4 and 4 grerrn s r"'as seizcd fiom A.5 u,hich is far belou'the commercial quant-t'". Hc further submittecl that A.4 is suffering from Acute Coronltry SJ'ndromc, a Iife threatening cardiac condition requiring urgent and continuous tner:lical care and that his mother and ia thcr are alscr suffering from scrious hezrrt ailments. Furth:r, on merits learned counst:l submitted that mandatory prov.sions are not followed rr,hile :;eizing the rnatcrial. The petitioners hercin are in jail from 23.O7 2025:rnd they have no past crimirLal history and shall abide by an1'- conditions that may be imp';seci by this Court. As such, rcquested this Court to grar Lt bail to the petitioners. 3

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail stating that cocaine was seized from the room where A.1 to A.7 are present, as such, all the accused are liable for 192 grams of cocaine which is a huge commercial quantiLv. He further submitted that he enquired with rhe jail superintendent about the health condition of A.4 and according to the jail superintendent there are no such, serious health problems to A-4. As the quantity invoh,ed in these cascs rs huge commercial quantity and if the petitioners are releascd on bail, they mav cornmit srmilar offences. Hence, reques[ed this Coun to dismiss these petitions.

6. Considering the submissions made by the rcspective counsel and the material placed on record, the quantity setzed from the possession of these accused along with o[her accused is 192 grams which is a commercial quanhfy. Though learned counsel for lhe petitioners submitted that A.4 is suffcring from serious cardiac problem, the report submitted by rhe jail superintendent shows that A.4 was taking to Government Hospital and getting treatment and 2D ECHO was also conducted on A.4 which is normal. Therefore, there is no such serious health problem to A.4. 4 7 . At this stage, it is perlinent to note Sect icn 37 of the NDPS Act, and the same reads as under: '37. (lffeDccs to bc cognizable and non baiitLl lr: (1) Not$ithstanding anvthing contained in rh'-' Co(lc oi Criminal Proccdure, 1973 (2 ot 197'1 , ia) r'r.,er-v offence punishable uncler this Act sbalI be cognizablc; (bl r1o person accusecl of an offence punisharl,: lbr llotlinces under sectl.)n 19 or section 2+ or section 27A and also tbr offences involv n3 comrnercial quantill I shall bc rcleased on bail r.rr on his os'n bond urlt-'ss (i) llre Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunltv to oppose the application for sr:ch re[e:lse, and lii) whcre the Public Prosecutor opposes th3 ilppLication, rhe coLlr-t is satistied that there rrf! reasonabLe grounds Ior believing that he is r)ct gr.riltl'of such offence and that he is not like[ t] corrmit anv offence lvhile on bail. i2) 'lhe liuritations on granting of bail specif e,1 :n clause (b) oI sub-section (1) are in addition Ltr :hc limitations under the Code of Crimi r;,1 rhe time being in force on granting oI bail."

8. In vieri. tl-rereof, Section 37 of the NDPS Act rc.andates that offences ini.olving commercial quantities be non bailable, requiring re:rsonable grounds to believe that the locused is not ,,n,.-.--. rr .\ -.J I t 5 guilty and unlikcly to commit further offences while on baii. In the lacts and circumstances of thc case on hand. this Court is not satisfied that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are met. Though petitioncrs are in jail frorn 23.07.2025, as thc material part of invcstigation is not yet completed, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners/A.4 and A.5 respectively and the same is liable to be dismlssed.

9. Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. Miscelianeous petilions, pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/- U.SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. 2 The XVll Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad. 3. The Station House Officer, Golconda Police Station, Hyderabad 4 One CC to SRI PORIKA VIKAS RAJ Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies GR/pst Y\- HIGH COURT DATED:2810812025 I I u t t t I i I i I COMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos.10310 AND 10398 of 2025 q ] ) , / {, \ ( t ii€1' (n( 2i rou trE t, sPalcH 6O a DISMISSING BOTH THE CRLps q,Ca Y'(-