Rachakonda v. HIGH COURT

The State of Telangana, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ...RespondenUComplainant Petition under Section 528 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.1 on bail in the interest of justice' ln connection with, Crime No.806 of 2025 P.S, Saroornagar District, Ranga Reddy. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gulab Singh, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SI'.IANA CRIMINAL PETITIO N No.111 08 of 2(125 ORAL ORDER: Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner, vrho is arrayed as accused No. 1 in Crime No.gO6 of 2025 of Sarortrnagar police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, on bai, the present Criminal Petition is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 19 O7.2O25, the complainant received credible information regarding the illegal transportation of NDpS substance. Acting on this information, the complainant conducted a raid and seized 4 liters c,f hashish oil which is about 3.75 kilograms from the possession cf accused No. 1 and 2 under cover of panchanama and accused No. . was arrested, and a case was registered against him for the offenr:es punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 2O(b)(ii)(C) of NDpS Act.

3. Heard Sri Gulab Singh, learned counsel appear:.ng on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri E. Ganesh, learned Ar;srstant public Prosecutor appearing for respondent _ State.

4. Learned counsel for the petiLioner submitte:d that the petttioner is innocent and the allegations levelec against the 2 SKS,J Ctt.P.No.lIlOE of 2()25 peLitioner are false and that he has been falsely implicated in the present crime for statistical purposes 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 19.07.2025 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 imposcd by this Court. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petirion.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional public prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that the alieged contraband involved in this case amounts to 3.75 Kgs of Hashish oil, which constitutes a commercial qqantity. He further submitted that t.he investigation is in progress and if the petitioner is 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.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it is noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner contencled sKs,J Orl.P.No.I11O8 of 2025 that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 19.07.2025 and that the case is false, fictitious, and fabricat,:cl, having been registered wil hout following due procedure. Horve rerr, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail, citing that a commercial quantit_v of hashish oil, weighing 3.75C lcilograms, was recovered from the petitioner. At this stage, it is pertinent to refer to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under: "37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailabi,r. (l) Not!! ithstand ing alything contained in the Ocde o[ Criminal Procedure, 1973 12 of 1974), (al even. c,ffence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishirble for l[offt:nces under section 19 or section 24 or section 2TA and also for offences involving commercial quantrty] shall be released on bail gr on his own bond unless-- (i) the Pubhc Prosecutor has been given an opportur.rity to oppose the apptication for such release, and (ii) uhere the Public Prosecutor opposes the appli(:ation, the court is satished that there are reasonable 3rounds for believing that he is not guitty of such offence r.nd that he is nor likely to commit aly offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specined irr ,:lause (b) oi sub-section (1) are in addition to the lirritations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granling of bail.' 4 .- sKsi.J \ Crl-P-no- 1r IOA of 2O2S -_-r5 \ 7 . In view thereof, Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that offences involving commerciai quantities be non-bailable, requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. Given the 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.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/. C.DEEPIKA ISTANT REGISTRAR S //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The V Additioinal Junior civil Judge cum v Additional Metropolitan Magistrate court at LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The Station House Officer, Saroornagar Police Station, LB Nagar, Rachakonda.

3. One CC to Sri Gulab Singh, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the state of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies SVS ,h, I HIGH COURT DATED:1 110912025 ORDER CRLP.No.11108 of 2025 t-: i I 1tr irl/ ?t.ei ,+ ,t a q' > () -), ../ DISMISSING THE CRLP 16'^ l>Ar