The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to enlarge/release the petitioners/A-1 and 2 on Anticif,atory Bail in the event of their a.rrest in connection with the crime in c.o.R.No.Sg of 202s, dt.1210712025, Altered section of Law from U/sec. 34(a) ol relangana state Excise Act 1968 to U/sec. 8(c) rlw 22 o! NDps Act, 198s, on the file oi proh. and Excise SHO Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri M p KASHYAP ,Advocate for the Petitioner and sri D.Arun Kumar Additional pubtic Prosecutor on behalf of the Sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER -,7 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No. LL6OT of 2O2S ORDER: This criminal Petition is filed for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos.l & 2 in coR.No.S9 of 2025 on the file of the prohibition and Excise, sHO, Gaciwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District, registered for the offences punishable under sections 8(c) read with 22 of NDpS Act

2. The brief facts of the case are that on July i 2, 2025, at 6:20 AM, the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, along w.ith staff, concucted a vehicle check on the road from Bijvvarerm to Mekhalesompally and seized a Bajaj Discover tvgo-wheeler and a large quantity of toddy, including 12 crates of bottles and. 2 drums. As such, a case was registered for the offences as alleged, and a notice under section 3s(3) of the Bharartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita was served on petitioner No.1/accused No. 1. The seized property was deposited, and samples were sent for analysis. 2

3. Heard Sri MP.Kashyap, learned counsel for petitioners, and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners, innocent and respectable citizens who are toddy tappers by profession; have been falsely implicated in a case registered under the NDPS Act, despite having no connection to the alleged offense. He further submitted that nothing was seized from their possession, and there are no independent witnesses to support the allegations. He contended that the Prohibition and Excise authorities have not followed the Excise Act, and the evidence was destroyed rvithout following procedure. Therefore, while advocating that the petitioners are willing to cooperate with the investigation and undertake to present themselves as and when directed, he prayed the Court to grant pre arrest bail to the petitionerss by allo',r'ing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that basing on a chemical analysis report, 3 . the section of law was altered from Section 3a@).f Excise Act, to Section 8(c) read with 22 of NDpS Act. He submitted that u'hen the seized toddy was sent for laboratory anarysis, i.e., contai.ers of 350ML each, it was found that the sampres were fermented toddy adulterated with Arprazoram, and the toddy involved in this case is about 100 packets, t:ach packet containing TLts of toddy which was adulte:rated with Alprazolarrr, i.e., TooLts, which itself is a commercial quantity. Thereforc, u'hile advocating that the matter requires investigation, he prayed the court to dismiss rhe criminal pctition. 6' Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the quantitv <>f Arprazoram mixed in 350mr of tocldy is not referred to in the FSL Report, therefore, it cannot be saicl whether the, quantity of Alprazolam involved in this case is commercial quantit5r or small quantity. However, it is the specilic stand of learned Additional public prose<:utor that total quantir.y of toddy was 700lts, out of which in 350 Mr itself the Alprazolam was present which clearly shov's that there is huge quantity of Arprazolam present in this cilse. 4 .- \ +i.,il!|?^d I \:,._ \. .i

7. At this juncture, it is imperative to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hira Singh Vs. Union of Indial has held as follows: "12.1. The decision of this Court in E. Micheal Raj [8. Micheal Raj v. Narcotics Control Bureau, (2003) 5 SCC 161 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 5581 taking the vierv that in the mixture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance with one or more neutral substance(s), the quantity of the neutral substance(s) is not to be taken into consideration while determining the small quantity or commercial quantity of a narcotic drug or ps-vchotropic substance and only the actual content b-v u,eight of the offending narcotic drug which is relevant for the purpose of determining whether it would constitute small quantity or 3 Crl.M.P.No. 3705 ol 2024 in Cr.No. 137 of 2024 commercial quantity, is not a good law.

12.2. ln case of seizure of mixture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances with one or more neutral substance(s), the quantity' of neutral substance(s) is not to be excluded and to be taken '(zozo) zoscczTz \- I 5 into consideration along with actual content by rveight o[ the offending drug, u,,hile determining the "small or commercial quantity" of the narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances.

12.3. Section 2l of the NDPS Act is not a standalone provision and must be construed along with other provisions in the statute including provisions in the NDPS Act including Notification \o. S.O. 2942(El dated l8-11-2009 and Notification \o. S.O. lO55(El dated t9-10-2001."

8. That being So, at this stage, it is pertinent to note Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under: "37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. __ (l) Notri,ithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, l9T3 (2 of D7\,--(a) every offence punishable under this' Act shall be cognizable; (tr) no person accused o[ an offence punishable for I ioffences under section t9 or section 24 or section 27 A and also for offences involving commerr:ial quantitvl shatl be released on bail or on his own br>nd unless-- 6 (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) rri,here 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 (i) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, L973 (2 of 19741or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail." g. From the above extracted portion, it is clear that 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.

10. That apart, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistentlt' held that anticipatory bail should not be granted in NDPS cases as a matter of routine, aS the same may hamper the investigation and enable the accused to destroy evidence. 7 Further, in the case of Anarul SK v. State of lVest Bengal2 the Hon'ltle Supreme Court observed that grant of anticipatory bail in cases involving NDPS is a very serious issue'

11. In light of the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners at a stage rvhen the investigation is still in progress, may impede the investigative process and potentially prejudice the case of the prosccution, aS such, there are no merits in this criminal petition and the same is liable to be dismissed'

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed' Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. Pet; tion Speei Lh,ye ao Apal (crt) lo'Pe SD/- K.AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ \i \ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER I I To,

1. The Judicial magistrate of First Class at Gadwal 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Proh. and Excise SHO Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District

3. One CC to SRI lvl P KASHYAP Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies ld.-- HIGH COURT DATE D :24 10912025 ORDER CRLP.No.11607 ot 2025 o;r'fllE S I,1 r( O, o() ! ,... ll4 titu 265 i .i.]r CRLP IS DISMISSED @ 18 o / \