The High Court · 2025

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 to grant the regular bail and release the Petitioners No.1 and 2 /Accused No.1 & 2, on the file of C.o.R No. 113 of 2o2s, dated. 0g- 05-2025, on the file of the Prohibition and Excise Station, Bhadrachalam. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Sharat Chandra A, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri D.Arun Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER ( THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No. LLA76 of 2O2S ORDER: Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.l and 2 in COR.No.113 of 2025 of Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Bhadrachalam, on bail, the prest:nt Criminal Petition is fiied.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.05.2025, the Prohibiti,rn & Excise Enforcement, Khammam, along with staff, corrducted a route watch and detected illegal possession and transportation of dry ganja. About 67.57O kgs of ganja was scizr:d flrom a Mahindra XUV 5OO, along with two mobile phones. '[he accused persons were arrested in the presence of mediator;S a.rrd produced before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, BtLadrachalam.

3. Heirrd Sri A. Sharat Chandra, learned counsel appearinll on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State. \ 2 sKs'J Crl.P.No.11t76 of 2ol25

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations were false and fabricated, and the petitioners were wrongly implicated and that the contraband was found in the vehicle and not in Lhe conscious possession of the accused, r,r,ho were only drivers and had no knowledge of the bags. He contended that the vehicle did not belong to the petitioners, theyhadnocriminalantecedents,andtheywerepoor labourers who came to Bhadrachalam for work. He further contended that the petitioners are in jail since 09-o5.2025 and that the material part of the in';estigation was compieted. Therefore, he prayed the Court. to gr;int bail to the petitioners by allowing 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 the petitioners are the drug peddlers' He further submitted that the investigation is in progress and if the petitioners are released on bail, at this stage, they may tamper with the evidence and may threaten the witnesses' Hence, he prayed the court to dismiss the criminal petition. This court, considering submissions made by both the 6. learned counsel and reviewing the material available on 3 sKs,J Crl.P.No.11876 of 2O2S record, it is noted that the contention of the petitioners that is false, {ictitious, and fabricated, the case was the c€ise registered without following the due procedure. However, the Additional Public Prosecutor opposes bait eiting commercial quantiry weighing 67.57A kg of ganja. At this stage, it is pertine:nt to note Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under: "37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of l974),--(al every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for 1[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, \ \ :! I I : a 4 sKs,J Crl.P.trto. 1 187 6 ol 2ol25 1973 (2 of 1974l'or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail."

7. In view thereof, Section BT 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. Given the serious allegations against the petitioners, this court is not 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 AS STANT //TRUE COPY/ OFFICER To,

1. The SPecial Sessions Judge for the Trial of Cases und arcotic Drugs and Psychotro pic Substances Act-Cum-l Additional Sessions Judge, Kothagudem The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Bhadrachalam The Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station , Bhadrachalam . The Superintendent, Central Jail, Khammam . Two CCs to public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 2 3 4 5 Hyderabad [OUT]

6. One CC to Sri Shirat Chandra A, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies ABK/SAfr .a .. h HIGH COURT DATED: 2410912025 ORDER GRLP.No.1187t, of 2O25 d I TAs IE C-r a'l 2 I IAN 202[ I .t DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 1e .pftt)t krG(.rU\"'