The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing.the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon he-ring the arguments of Sri ATMAKUR YASWANTH ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent; The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA g{IUfNlTtllf,gIJf.] No.ll111 of2o.255 ORAL OF.DER: Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner, who is arrayed as accus,:d No.2 in C.O.R. No.4O of 2025 on the file of Prohition and Excir;e, Uppal, on bail, the present Criminal Petition is filed.

2. Th,: brief facts of the case are that, on 12.05.2025, the complainant received credible information regarding the illegal transpor':ation of NDPS substance. Acting on this information, the complair.ant conducted a raid at Shopping Centre I, Dilapidated Building, H.C.L., Mallalpur and seized 1O9 kilograms of dry ganja from the possession of accused under cover of panchanama and accused Nos.2 and 3 were arrested, and a case was registered against them for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with 20(r)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act.

3. Ht:ard Sri Atmakur Yaswanth, learned counsel appearing on behalf o[ the petitioner as well as Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent - State.

4. k:arned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitionr:r is innocent and no contraband was seized from the 2 sl(srJ Crl.P.!to.l I 1 Ll of 20125 possession of the petitioner and that the petitioner was alleged to be sitting outside the scene of offence and that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are false and that he has been falsely implicated in the present crime for statistical purposes. He further stated that the petitioner was arrested on L2.as.2o25 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. Therefore, he prayed the court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

5. on the other hand, the rearned Additional public prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that the alleged contraband involved in this case amounts to 109 Kgs of dry ganja, which constitutes a commercial quantity. He further submitted that the 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 ahd upon perusar of the material placed on record, it is noted t]:at the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since l2.os.2o2s Zi 3 sKs'J Crl.P.No.l1111of 2O25 and that the case is false, fictitious, and fabricated, having been registere<l without following due procedure. However, the learned Additionzrl Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail, citing that a commercial quantity of dry ganja, weighing 1O9 kilograms, was recoverecl from the petitioner. At this stagi, it is pertinent to refer to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under: ( { "37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable' -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 {2 of 19741,--(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for l[offences und.er section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing 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 specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, Lg73 (2 of 19741 ot any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail."

7. IrL view thereof, Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that offences; involving commercial quantities be non-bailable, requiring ' i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l Iirll i I I : 4 sKs,J Crl.P.!to.1 I 1LL of 2o25 i) 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'.M.NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Medchal 2. The V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Rangareddy 3. The Superintendent, Cherlapally Prison, Rangareddy District 4. The Station House Offie,er, Excise P.S., Uppal 5. One CC to SRl. ATMAKUR YASWANTH Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad (OUT) 7. Two CD Copies District, Kushaiguda at L.B.Nagar VSIVT/PSL w HIGH COT'RT DATED i11110912025 t 1 l-iE s (. 1,..) I n i{il i/lr/6 =, * x o c I [R RLP.N o.11111 ot 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 5t<s rc;/'fze