The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 480,483 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the fvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 of the satisfaction of the I Addl Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Crime No. 161 of 2025 of P.S. Habeeb Nagar, Hyderabad Ihis Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and uporr hearing the arguments'of Sri K S S Ayyubi ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Arurn Kumar D, the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Sole Respondent The Gourt made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA ORAL ORDER: Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioners, who is arrayed as accused Nos.l and 2 in Crime No.161 of 2025 of Habeebnagar Police Station, Hyderabad, on bail, the present Criminal Petition is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, based on credible information, on 27.07.2025, the police conducted a raid at H.No.No.11-1-1165/4, Mangar Basti and seized 1560 tablets of Nitrazepam, each weighing approximately 0.560 grams, with a total weight of about 873 grams. Consequently, a case was registered against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 2l(cl of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

3. Heard Sri K.S.S. Ayyubi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri Arun Kumar Doddle, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent - State. 4- Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Accused No.1 was the wife of Accused No.2, Accused No.1 was a housewife / / I 2 sKs,J a Crl.P.No.11794 of 2O2S and Accused No.2 was a labourer and that they were innocent and not connected in any manner with the alleged offences, and that they had been falsely implicated in the case and that the entire prosecution story was fabricated. He further submitted that the petitioners had been in jail since 27.07.2025 and that the total weight of 873 grams excluded the strip weight, and that each tablet contained only 10 mg of the substance and asserted that the calculation had not been properly made. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioners by allowing this criminal t 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 the case is 873 grams of Nitravet tablets, which constituted a commercial quantity. He further submitted that the investigation was ongoing and that, if the petitioners were released on bail at this stage, they might tamper with the evidence and 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 and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that the petitioners had been in judicial custody since

27.07.2025 and Although the learned counsel for the petitioner 3 sKs,J Crl.P.I{o. I 1794 of 2025 contended that they were not connected with the allegations, the record revealed that 1560 tablets had been recovered from the possession of Accused No. 1, which constitutes a substantial commercial quantity, weighing 873 grams of Nitravet tablets. At this stage, it was pertinent to refer to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which reads as follows: \ \l| "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 under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantityl 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, 1973 (2 of 19741or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail." ! \ t 4 SKS'J Crl.P.I{o. 1 1794 of 2ol25 i In view thereof, section 37 0f the NDPS Act mandates that 7. offences involving commercial quantities be non-bailable, requiring reasonabre grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail' Given the seriousallegationsagainstthepetitioners,thisCourtisnot 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/. C. DEEPIKA ANT REGISTRAR I I/TRUE COPY// N OFFICER To,

1. The I Additional Sessions Judge' Hyderabad . . 2 f6e XVf Additional Chief Judici;l tyalistrale at H.yderabad. 3. The Station nousi Offil"i, Police Stition Habee6na.gar, Hvderabad' 4. Two CCs to the Frnii" Fi,it"lrtor, niir,'q9r,[-o1-i"tZngan'a, Hvderabad'(OUT) 5 One CC to sri. K S S AyyubiAdvocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies a 'ffiE S rA f; 16JANzozn * * t'A i{;" HIGH COURT DATED:2410912025 ORDER CRLP.No.11794 of 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED C\ n