The High Court · 2025

...RespondenUComplainant 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 Petitioner/Accused No.4 on regular bail in vide Crime No. 171 of 2025, Police Station Begumpet, Hyderabad District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Chandrashekhar Yadav S, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER : ! ! l ! i ! I i i I I 2 I I i THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. STi ANA CRIMINAL PE"TITION No.11O88 of 20i 5 ORDER: Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitic rer who is arrayed as accused No.4 in FIR No. 171 of 2025 ' f Begumpet Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for t Le offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Sectic r 20(b)(ii)(c) r/w with Section 29 of Narcotic Drugs ancl 'sychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on bail, the present Crimi'r r1 Petition is frled.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28 (

4.2025, the police received credible information that four inci 'iduals were transporting ganja. The police intercepted the r ccused ald recovered 81.15 kilograms of ganja from the 1r rssession of accused Nos. 1 to 8. The accused revealed the L they were tralsporting the same to other places. The tr, cused were arrested, and a case was registered against them.

3. Heard Sri S. Chandrashekhar Yadav, Iear red counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well .s Sri Arun \ 2 Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent for the alleged offences and the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents earlier. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in jail from

30.O4.2025. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the past I22 days and all the witnesses were already examined and the investigation was also completed. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant baii to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner herein is the residents of Odisha State and it is diffrcult to secure their presence for the investigation. He further submitted that the investigation is in progress. At this stage, granting of bail to the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. -'*i F I

6. This Court, considering submissions madr: cy both the iearned counsel and reviewing the material : vailable on record, it is noted that the contention ofthe petitrc eer that the case is false, fictitious, and fabricated, the case \.\.i s registered u,ithout follo'"ving the due procedure. However, t-r r Aclditiona,l Public Prosecutor opposes bail citing commerl al quantit5r weighing 81. 15 kg of ganja. At this stage, it is rertinent to note Section 37 of the NDpS Act, which reads as rr rder: "37 Olfences to be cognizable and non_bajl i le. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in he Code of Criminal Proceclure, l9T3 (2 of I97+) lal every oflence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused o[ an offence punishat)I,) br lloffences under section lg or section 24 or se( t ln 27A and, also for offences involving commer ial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his c rn bond unless-- (i) the Pubtic opportunity to release, and Prosecutor oppose the has been given rn application for rt:h '(ii) where the public prosecutor opposes 1e application, the court is satisfied that there r re reasonable grounds for believing that he is rot gr,rilty of such offence arld that he is not likelr' to commit any offence while on bail. ( { r 4 (2) The limitations on granting of bail specifred in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 ol 19741 or any other law for the time being in force on grantilg of bail"

7. In view thereof, Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that offences involving commercial quantities be non-bailable, requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. Given ttre serious allegations against the petitioner, this Court is not satisfied that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are met. Therefore, the criminal petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. r

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To {

1. The Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad 2. The Xl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad 3. The Station House Officer, Begumpet Police Station, Hyderabad 4. The Superintendent, Chanchalguda Central Jail, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at I Hyderabad [OUT]

6. One CC to Sri Chandrashekhar Yadav S, Advocate [OpUC] 7. Two CD Copies ABK/PR W HIGH COURT DATED: 2310912025 ORDER CRLP.No.11088 of 2025 - t:--_-\ i I ttl! S ,-,.i

7. \-, /-. ' .3.. 'a, \. (. -t ',,-a;, \. --.- I 2 Btr 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 0\ j i ! ! i I I i ! I I I : ! I ! i : : I I