The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad through PS Abdullapurmet. ... Res pon de nUC o m plainant 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 toto enlarge the petitioners/A-1 and 2 herein on bail in connection with in Crime No 393 of 2025 on the file of P.S. Abdullapurmet, Rachakonda Commissionerate 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 Chekka Rajkumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent State. The Court made the following: ORDER €E-r*f"lrtl _'r-.{ 'v , THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SU., .NA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11136 OF 2O:2 , ORDER: Seeking the Court to enlarge thc petitioners, v I o arc arral'cd as accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 393 of 2O2i on the hle of Abdullapurmet Police Stzrtion, Rachakonda Comrni sionerate, on bail, the present Criminat Pctition is filed. The ofl' rcc registered against the petitioners is punishable under Section t(c) r/w 20 (b) (ii), (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic s' bstances Act, t q85 (for short , 't he Act').

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11. )6.2O25, upon receiving credible information, the Police condut r :d a raid and seized 19.93 kilograms of Hashish from the p<: session of the accused persons. They were allegedly involved in ' ansporting the contraband illegally to buyers for interstate expc: r to Bangalore, Karnataka. Accordingly, the Police registered €r ( se against the accused for the above-mentioned offence.

3. Heard Sri Ch. Raj Kumar, learned counsr I appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri Arun Kumetr )oddla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf r>f the respondent- State. 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11136 of 2025

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted lhat the petitioners are innocent and they are no way concerned with the alleged offence. He further submitted that the petitioners are languishing in jail since 12.06.2025 and the material part of the investigation has been compleled. He also submitted that the Prohibition and Excise Police have not complied n'ith the s[anding orders of Lhe Ministry of Finance (Department of Reuenue). In view of the non compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act and Standing orders, the petitioners are entitled for bail. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioners by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the alleged contraband involved in this case amounts to 19.93 Kgs of Hasish which constitutes a commercial quantity. He further submitted that in view of the Section 37 of NDPS Act the petitioners are not entitled for bail.

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 quantit5r involved is 2OKGS of Hasish. lKg of Hashish oil itself is a commercial quantity and 2OKGS is a huge I __EEffi . -,i* { ) \ 3 SKS,J P.No.11136 of 2025 commercial quantity. At this stage, it is pertir r nt to refcr to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under: "l)7. Offences to be cogniz<tble artd norr bailolt r -. ll) Notwitlstandinq angtlling contqined in the xle oJ' CinLinal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 197a),--(a) eueq tffen<'e purishabLe under this Act sha be cognizable; (b) no person accused oJ an offence punisl r tle, .for l lolfences under section 19 or section 24 or sect tr 27A arrcL aLso for olfences irtuoLuinq commercral quent li slto]l be released on bqil or on his outn bond unless' (i) llrc Public Proseq)tor h(Is bee,n giuen an oppo 1 ttitll to oppose the opplication for such release, and (ii) uthere lhe htblic Prosecutor opposes the opphc t .()tL, the coutl ts saliqEed thot there are reasonabl<: qrl r1s for betieuing that he is not gutltA of such offence <tnd I he is not likelg to commtt any offence whiLe on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bait spec-ified irt utse (b) of sub-section (1) are in qddilion to the linitotro ; ruuler the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 197 | or artg oth<:r Lanu for the time being in force on granting of I trl."

7. In view thereof, Section 37 of the NDPS Ac I mandates rhat offences involving commercial quantities be non-b r lable, requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accused are not guilt), and unlikely to commit further offences while on lr Lil. Given the serious allegations against the petitioners, th-: Court is not satisfied thar conditions for granting bail undcr Se, ion 37 are met. 4 SKS,J crl.P.tto. 11136 0f 2025

8. The petitioners are not entitled to bail, though they have SubmittedthattherewasaviolationoftheStandingordersand Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, it is not sufficient to consider the same for granting bail. g. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed' Miscellaneous applications, if any pending' shall stand closed. SD/- P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Station House Officer, Abdullapurmet Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate.

2. One CC to Sri. Chekka Rajkumar, Advocate. [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, Hrgh Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies YJR /PSL l-x s I I I i i I l HIGH COURT DATED:1510912025 ORDER CRLP.No.11136 ot 2025 iES C)o * z f-, ?[26 * SPA.TCY DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETIT' ON. J r" a, o/'fze