The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 480 and 483 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of crrminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to enlarge the petrtroner/Accused No 1 on bail in crrme No.02 0f 2025 0f P.S. Rachakonda Narcotics, TG Anti-Narcotics Bureau (TGANB) dated 0210712025 on the file of the special Judicial Frrst class (Excise) Magistrate-cum-V Additional lvletropolitan Magistrate - cum V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lVemorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of lr,4s. Sandhya Rani Racharla, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Nageshwar Rao Pujari ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar D, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana, on behalf of Sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SII'JANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11762 of2(25 ORAL ORDER: Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner. who is arrayecl as accused No.1 in Crime No.2 of 2025 of Racha} onder Narcotics Police Station, TG Anti-Narcotics Bureau, on ba il, t he present Criminal Petition is filed. 2 . The brief facts of the case are that, ba.;, .d 1y1 credible information, on 02.O7.2025, the police conducted :. r.aicl and seized 2O3 grams ol'OG Kush Weed, 12 grams of Ecstasr piUs lrom thc possession of accused. Consequently, Accused wc -,. arl.e sted, and a casc was registered against them for the alrr rvc tnentionccl offences.

3. Heard Ms. Sandhya Rani Racharla, lcarned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Nageshwar Rao pujari, le arncd counsel for the petitioner as u.el1 as Sri Arun Kumar D, lea- red Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner subm t l_ed that the petitioner was innocent of the alleged offences ind that the petitioner had been in jail since o2.or .202s and that .he police had I l 2 sr(s,J Crl.P.No.l1762 of 2025 conducted the search and recorded the panchanama ivithout adhering to the mandatory procedures prescribed under the provisions of the NDPS Act and that the material part of investigation is already completed. Thercfore, she prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner 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 petitioner, stating that the petitioner is not a consumer but a drug peddler and that the petitioner was selling OG Kush Weed and Ecstasy pills, which he allegedly purchased from Accused No.3 arld paid for uia Google Pay. He further submitted that the conLraband involved constitutes a commercial quantiLy, and 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 crrminal petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it was noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since O2.O7.2O25 and that he is not a drug peddler but merely a consumer, asserting 3 SKS,J ( r1.P.No.11762 of 2025 his innocence \\,ith respect to the alleged olfe:rc: ;. Hos'ever, the remand case diary indicates otherwise, sugg3 iting that the petitioner is not a consumer but a drug peddl,: , and that the seized contraband constitutes a commercial ql z n[ily. At this stage, it is pertinent to refer to Section 37 of the \ lps Act, which reads as under: "37. Oflences to be cognizable and non-bailabr , (l) Notwithstanding anything contained in the ( ode of Crirninal Pr'ocedure, 1973 (2 of B7a),--(al ever. offence punrshable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishaltle ior Ifoftences under section 19 or section 24 or sect.>n 27A and also fol offences involving commercial quant11,] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-- (i) ttre Public Prosecutor has been given an oppor_r Lnity to oppose:he application for such release, and (ir) r,.,here thc Public Prosecutor opposes the aptr,1 :ation, the.ourt is satished that there are reasonable g ounds for bclieving thar he is not guilty of such offence 1 Ld that he is not likcly to commit any offence while on bai . (2) Tlle limitations on granting of bail specified i:r clause (b) of sub-scction (1) are in addition to the linri atiorls undcr the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of I t74l or any other larv for the time being in force on grar',ing of bail. "

7. [n view thereof, Section 37 of the NDpS Act :nandates that offences involving commercial quantities be non-bail,rble, requiring 4 sKs,J Crl.P.No.11762 of 2025 reasonablc grounds to believe thc accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. Given the serious allegations against the petitioner, this Court is not satished that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are met. Therelore, 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/- P. PONNA ASSISTANT HNA RAR GIST //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To, t The Special Judicial First Class (Excise) [Vlagistrate-cum-V Additional tVletropolitan tVlagistrate - cum - V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar 2 The Station House OffiCer, Police Station Narcotics, Rachakonda, Hyderabad 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad 4 One CC to Sri Nageshwar Rao Pujari Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies (our) Y\. HIGH COURT DATED:2410912025 .,---:-..-. ,=&t o LL I H U * l\\ . .l , ;l t . ll .) ,'tj ORDER CRLP.No.11762 of 2025 CRlMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED ^-\ gtJs;: \62- €{r'tR-'