The High Court · 2025

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 Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER THI' HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA (IRIMINAL PETITION No.116O8 of 2O2t) ORDER: This Criminal Petition is f-rled for grant of pre-arrest bail to thc petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos. I & 2 in COR.No.60 of 2025 on the file of the Prohibition and Excise, SHO, Gadwtrl, Jogulamba Gadwal District, registercd for the oflences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 22 of NDPS Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on July 1), 2025, at 3:OO PM, the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector (P&ESI) DTF Cadu.al, along with staff, conducted a raid at the Toddy Shop, TFT, Pathapalem, and seized 4 plastic crates of toddy, each containing 12 bottles of 65O ml, and 3 drums of t-oddy samples. Although the spot test showed the todd-v-' u,as free lrom chloral hydrate, the authorities registered a c;rse under Rule 27( 1) of the Telangana Excise Rules 20O7 due to suspicion. Thc seized samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner's lab in Hyderabad for anaiysis. 2

3. Heard Sri MP.Kashyap, learncd 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 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 without following procedure. Therefore, while advocating that the petitioners are willing to cooperate r,r,ith the invcstigation and undertake to present themselves as and when directed, he prayed the Court to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioners by allowing this criminal petilion.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counscl for the petitioners stating that basing on a chemical analysis report, the section of lanr was altered lrom Section 27(l) of Excisc Act, to Section 8(c) read with, 22 of NDPS Act. He submitted that when the seized toddy was sent for laboratory analysis, i.e., it u,as found rhat the samples were fermented todd], adulteratcd with Alprazolam, and the toddy involved in this case is about 4 plastic cratcs of toddy, each containing 12 bottles of 650 ml which was adulterated with Alprazolam, which itself is a commercial quzlntity. Therefore, while advocating that the mattcr rL'quircs investigation, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal pctition.

6. Having rcgarrd to the rival submissions madc and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the quantit!' of Alprazolam mixed in sample of toddy is not referred t.o in thc FSL Report, therefore, it cannot be said whether the quantity ol Alprazolam involved in this case is commcrcial qLrantity or small quantity. However, it is the specilic stand of learned Additional Public Prosecutor that total quantity is about 4 plastic crates of toddy, each containing 12 bottles of 65O ml, out of which in sample itself the Alprazolam \\'as prcsent which clearly shows that there is huge quantiqv of Alprazolam present in this case. I-!r 4

7. At this juncture, it is imperative to note that the Honble 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 [E. Micheal Raj v. Narcotics Control Bureau, (2008] 5 SCC 161 : (2OO8l 2 SCC (Cri) 5581 taking the vic$' 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 quantit]' or commerciai quantity of a narcotic drug or psr chotropic substance and only the actual content b]'rveight of the offending narcotic drug r.r'hich is relevant for the purpose of determining whether it would constitute small quantity or 3 Crl.M.P.No. 3705 of 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 oi neutral substance(s) is not to be excluded and to be taken '(zozo) zo scc zzz r into consideration along with actual content by rveight of the offending drug, while determining the "srnall or commercial quantit-v-" of the narcotic dntgs or ps1-chotropic substances. 'I2.3. Sectior.r 21 ot the NDPS Act is not a standalonc pro." ision and must be construed akrng w.irh othcr provisions in the statute including provisrons rn the NDPS Act including Notihcation No. S.0. 2942(E) (iated l8 I I 2009 and Notification No S.O.tO.55(E) dated l9 l0 2OO1."

8. That berng so, at this stage, it is pertinent to note Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under: "37. Offerrces to t>e cogniz.able and non-bailablc il) Not$ithstanding an] thing contained in the Code of (lriminal Proc<'dure, 1973 12 of 1974),--(a) everl' offence yrunishable under this Act shall be cognizabl('; (b) rro pcrson accused of an offence punishable for llof:ences under section l9 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantityl shall be released on bail or on his o$-n bonrl unless- - 5 t (i) the Public opportunitv to Prosecutor oppose the has been given an application for such release, and (ii) rvhere 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 likell' 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, 1973 (2 of 19741 or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail."

9. 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 lurther offences while on bail. 1O. That aparl, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently helcl that anticipatory bail should not be granted in NDPS cases as a matter of routine, as the same may hamper the ini'estigation and enable the accused to destroy evidence. 1 Further, in thc case of Anarul SK v. State of West Bengal2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court obscrvcd that grant of anticipatory bail in cases,nvolving NDPS is er vtn'serious issue 1 i. In light ol the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners at a stage when the investigation is still in progress, may impede the investigative process and potentially prejudice the case of the prosecution, as such, thcre arc no merits in this criminal petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Pctition is dismissed Miscellaneous applications, il any pending, shall stand closed. " Pelrti* {or Spetial Leave toAPTeat (Lrt)t)o. 126 2l SD/- K.AMMAJI TY REGISTRAR D //TRUE COPY// I SEC:TION OFFICER \j To, '1 . The Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Gadwal 2. The Station House officer, porice Station proh. and Excise SHo Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District, )| { I

3. One CC to SRt. M p KASHYAP Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CC to SRt PUBLTC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies tu_ A':/DAI HIGH COURT DATED:2410912025 ( trti SrA 14: ,/,i:' I ...i t-, 'l 0[T P5 ( c .Oe ST'ATCI rEO ORDER CRLP.No.11608 of 2025 CRLP IS DISMISSED @ l/{