The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T Rahul ,Advocate for the Petrtioner and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following: ORDER I I I I I t i I I i I { l i THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. St. JANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1O614 OF !( 25 ORDER: 'lhis criminal petition is hled under Sectkrrr 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2O23 (for s-r rrt 'BNSSJ by the petitioner/A.1 seeking his enlargement on ba'1 in connection with Crime No.116 of 2025 of Laxmidevipalli I rlice Station, Bhadradri-l(othagudem District- The offences ir. eged against the petitioner are under Sections 8(c) r/w.20(b) (l (C) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances a :t, J 985 (for short 'NDPS Act').

2. Thc case of thc prosecution is that on !

09.00 hours, while the complainant S.l of Poti ; routine duty, he rece.ived information abouL illeE

1.06.2025 at ' was on his rl possession and transportation of ganja in an auto. As su: r, during his check, he apprehended the accused Al and ,A.2 n: rr Lothunagu Viltage, Laxmidevipalli Mandal, Bhadradri Kotha3 rdem District u,ho allegedly procured dry ganja from A.3 I rd A.4 from Yramavaram Mandal, ASR District, Andhra Pra c esh, with an intention of selling it to A.5, who is a resident c I Zaheerabad and native of Latur, Maharashtra. The 1 :cuse d were transporting 67 .87O kilograms of dry ganj a valued at t33,93,500/- from Bhadrachalam to Ht', erabad via de+ 2 Kothagudem and Yellandu, in a Bajaj Auto Rickshaw bearing registration number TS 29 TB 5460. A seizure and confession panchanama was conducted in the presence of mediators. The complainant tl-ren produced the accused Al and A2, along with thc seized property and the panchanama, at pS Laxmidevipalli and requested to take necessary action. Basing on the said complaint, police registered the case against the accused for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri T.Rahul, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, Iearned Additional Public prosecutor appearing for the respondent State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged; he is falsely implicated in this casc. The A.1 ar-rd A.2 are the transporters of goods and they had no knowledge of the alleged contraband. A.2 is the wife of A. 1. The petitioner herein is an auto driver and in the course of his livelihood he was transporting the goods wherein he is not aware of the alleged ganja. The petitioner herein is the sole breadwinner of his tiamily and he had two minor children. The petitioner is in judiciai custody since

21.06.2025. Further A.2 who is the wife of petitioner herein was granted bail, as such, prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner. -=:i.:':Hy 3

5. On the othcr hand, learned Additional hr r ic Prosecutor opposed bail stating that the quantity involvcd i L this case is huge commcrcial quantity and if bail is grantcrl J-rc petitioner mav cornmit similar offences. As such, prayed thi; Court not to grant bail to the petitioncr and to dismiss this per i irrn.

6. Considering the submissions made by bo-. L the counsel :rnd materizrl on record, the contraband seized i:, r commercial quantitv and the petitioner used to sell ganja b1' r rrchasing the same from olher accused. At this stagc, it rs per incnt to note Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and the same reads r s under : t "37 Offences to be cognizable and non baiiar:. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in t rr: Codc of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of l9a. ) (a) every offence punishable under this Acl s ) 1l be cognrzable; (bJ no person accused of an offence punishr I k: for 1foffences under section 19 or section 12. rr section 27A and also for offences inrohi rg commercial quantityl shall be released on r il or on his ou,n bond unless (i) tht: Public Prosecutor has been given rr opportunity to oppose the application for s r h release. and (ii) rvhere the Public Prosecutor opposes t rc application, the court is satished that there E 'e reasonable grounds for believing that he is r )r guilty of such offence and that he is not likd, o commit any offence while on bail. 4 (2) The limitations on granting of bail specihed in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the hmitations under the Code o[ Crimina] Procedure, 1973 12 of 1974) or any other law for the time bcing in force on granting of bail."

7. [n view thereof, Section 37 of the NDpS Act mandates that offcnces involving commercial quantitics be q<ln- 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 ltand, Lhis Court is not satisfled that conditions fcrr granting bail under Section 37 arc met. Therefore, the Criminal Petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed Miscellaneous pe titions, if any, pending shalI stand closed SD/- P. PONNA KRISHNA S STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, Kothaoudem Dlstrict.

1. The Station House Officer, Police Station Laxmideripalli, Bhadradri z fwo Cts to the Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, 3. Ohe CC to Sir. T itahul, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Hvderabad. (OUT) AS/SA HIGH COURT DATED:0410912025 ORDER CRLP.No.10614 of 2025 g i t, .ET

4. .\). + ,2 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED k 1r ../\ t\ ( -\