Hyderabad. IOUTI v. HIGH COURT

The state of relangana, Through Mokila Police station, Rep. by its public Prosecutor, High Court at Hydelabad ...Respondents 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 grant the bail to the petitioner/Accused No.1 in connection with Crime No.69 of 2025 on the file of the PS Mokila for the offence U/Sec.8(c) rlw 20(B) (ii) (c), 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act-1985 in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, Advocate for the Petitioners and of the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11OO8 of 2O25 ORAL ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2A23 (for short tsNSS) seeking bail to the petitionerf accused No.1 in Crime No.69 of 2025 on the lile of the P.S. Mokila, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(bXiiXC) and 29 of the Narcotic I)rugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short'NDPS ActJ.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.03.2025, on receipt of the credible information, the Police apprehended the petitioner erlong with other accused and seize d. 52 kgs. of dry ganja from their possession. Based on the same, present crime was registered.

3. Hearcl Mr.Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner a.nd Mr.Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public Prose'cutor appearing for respondent-State. 2 SKS,J {/ Crl.P.t{o. 1 1OO8 of 2O2S

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the police conducted the search and recorded the panchanama without adhering to the mandatory procedures prescribed under the provisions of the NDps Act. He further stated that the petitioner was arrested on o6.og.2o2s and that the investigation has been completed, except for the filing of the charge sheet and that the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation and also ready to abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this court and hence, prayed for grant of bail.

5. on the other hand, learned Additional public prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, contending that the petitioner has committed a grave offence and that the police seized 52 kilograms of dry ganja, which constitutes a commercial quantity under tJre NDPS Act. He further contended that the petitioner is involved in more than 13 criminal cases and that the investigation is still ongoing and if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, he may tamper with the evidence, threaten / / 3 SKS,J Crl.P.!to. 11OO8 of 2025 the witnesses and commit a similar offence, and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the learnr-'d counsel and upon perllsal of the material available on record, it is observed that the police seized 52 kilograms of dry ganja. from the possession of the petitioner and other accused persons, which constitutes commercial quantity and there are specilic allegations against the petitioner that attract the provisions of the NDPS Act. The record fur*rer reveals that prior to the present petition, the petitioner had filed two bail applic;ations uide Criminal Petition Nos.7458 of 2025 and 8158 of il025, which were dismissed by this Court on

26.O6.2O2E; and 16.07.2025 respectively. There are no changed circumstances warranting reconsideration. Additionalll', the petitioner is found to be involved in 13 criminal cases, out of which 4 pertain to offences under the NDPS Act. Even as per the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the investigation is still in progress. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which lays down stringent conditions for the 4 SKS'J Crl.P.No.1 1OO8 of 2O2S \ grant of bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotic substances, which reads as under: "37. Offences to be cognizable and non- bailable. - (1) Notwitlrctanding angthing contained in tlrc Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),- (a) euery offence punislwble under this Act shall be agnizable; (b) no person acqtsed of an offene punishable for 1 [offences under section i9 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences inuoluing commercial quantitgl shall be released on bail or on his oun bond unless-- (t) tlle Public Prosecutor has been giuen an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Proseattor opposes the application, tlrc court is satisfied that tlrcre are reasonable grounds for belieuing 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 specifted in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to tle limitations under tle Code of Criminal Procedure, 7973 (2 of 197fl or anA 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-bailable, / I 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11OO8 of 2O2S requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail and that there are no changed circumstances warranting reconsideration. Hence, since the allegations levelled against the petitiorler are serious in nature, this court is not satisfied to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the criminal petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed /TRUE COPY// SD/- C.DEEPIKA ANT REGI OFFICER To,

1. The Judicial Firsit Class Magistrate Chevella, Cyberabad. 2.TheStationHouseofficer,MokilaPoliceStation. 3. One CC to Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two ccs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana' at Hyderabad. IOUTI 5. Two CD CoPies SVS W HIGH COURT DATED:1110912025 // --l -l ER CRLP.No.11008 of 2025 ,. i (.'-, r' !r .n. ( .'t a) 1Il ltEU ruf * l[if' DISMISSING THE CRLP \\