The High Court · 2025

The Union of lndia,, Through lnspector, Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Hyderabad Zone, Rep. by its Spl. Public Prosecutor. High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad ...RESPON DENT/COMPLAINANTS 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 Enlarge the Petitioner/ Accused No.1 on Regular Bail in Cr. NCB F. No. 4811l1l2}24lNCBlHZU of P.S Kukatpally (on the file of Hon'ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda), and Pass such other order or orders This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum bf Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri PORIKA VIKAS RAJ ,Advocate for the Petitioner and V.T. Kalyan (SC FOR Narcotic Control Bureau) on behalf of the Sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SIJJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No-121 21 0F 2()25 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for shor.t 'BNSS') by the petitioner/A.1 seeking enlargemcnt on bail in connection with cr.NCB.F.No.a8l I /r 12o24lNCB/HZU of Kr-rkarpalty Police station, Hy'derarbacl. The offences alleged against ihe petitioner are under Section 8(c) rlw.2O(bl(ii)(C), 2TA, 2t; and 29 of Narcotic Dnrgs and Psychotropic Substances A<:t, i98S (for short'NDPS Act').

2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant w-ho is the Inspcctor, Narcotics conirol Bureau, Hydererba d zone, filed a conrplaint stating that on 11.o4.2024 {)n receiving specific inft-.rnration that one person from Matrarashtra is trafficking a substantial quantity of Ganja to Mah:rrashtra via warangal-Hyderabad route in Ashok Leyland tn:ck bearing No.MH 16 cD 6006, started checking the vehicle movements before entering the Ghatkesar Toll plaza coming fro rr warangal route. At about LToo hours, they noticed the said vehicle and the same was intercepted and on enquiry he revealed his name -2- sKs,J Crl.P.Ito. 1212L of 2()25 as Anand Ashok Adhaqale who is the petitioner herein and the NCB tczrm informed him about their interception and when he u,as inlormed about vehicie search, he declined. On enquiry about ganja trafficking he revealed that he is transporting more than 300 packets kept in 25 gunny bags which are concealed under consignment of 4OO bags of Aluminium Chloride Chemical Powder and recovered 334 packets and each of them \^/ere tightly wrapped with brown color adhesive tapes and each of the packet approximately weighed 2 kgs. The said packets contain dark brown color suspected material with pungent smell and appeared as flowering and fruiting tops of a plant. On enquiry, the petitioner replied that it is Ganja totaling to

721.42 kgs. Hence, a complaint was registered against the accused for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri Porika Vikas Rrj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.T.Kalyan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is only a driver of the Ashok Leyland Truck and he had no knowledge of the contraband concealed beneath the consignment of Aluminium Chloride bags. The confession statement recorded under Sectin 67 of NDPS Act is inadmissible -3- SKS,J Crl.P.No.1212L of 2o25 in view of lhe judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme (lourt in Tofan Singh Vs state of Tamilnadur, the alleged search irnci seizure is vitiated for ncln-compliance o[ mandaLory provisiorrs ol Sections 42 ancl 50 of NDPS Act. He further submir.it:d that the petitioner was in judicial custody since 12.04.2024, causing undue hardship to his family, that investigation is completed and chargc sheet filed, therefore, there is no qucstion of tampering with the evidence and there is lt,-) chance of conclusion of trial in the near future. He also subrnitted that as per the juclgment of the Apex court in Satender Kumar Antil v.CBI z the accused cannot be kept in jail in the case of prolonged period of trial. He also submitted that rhr: 1>etitioner is taking care of his small children and his aged motlrr:r and that their house is also damaged in the recent rains an:l praved the court to allovt, the criminal Petition by granting regular bail to the petitioner.

5. on the other hand, the learned standing cou.sel opposed the bail, stating that huge commercial quantity was seized from the petitioner. If the petitioner is released on bilii, he may abscond and commit similar offences. There are no reasonable L (2021) 4 SCC l 2 (2022) 10 SCC 51 ) 1=-' -4- SKS'., Crl.P.No.12l2l of 2o25 grounds in this case to conclude that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence. The investigation is under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. He also submitted that petitioner cannot be released merely on the ground of delay and Section 436-A of gre Cr.P.C., is not applicable in this case as it is only one of the mechanisms under law and not an absolute ground for release. In the instant case, the seized contraband is a commercial quantity and he is in jail for not less than five years, thus, he cannot be released on bail according to Section 436-4 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss tkre Criminal Petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that previously the petitioner had liled Crl.P.No. 1 1 138 of 2025 before this Court, seeking the relief of grant of regular bail and the same was dismissed uide order dated 15.09.2025 observing that 'Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that offences inuoluing commercial quantities be non-bailable, requiing reasonable grounds to belieue the acatsed is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. Giuen the serious sef o/ allegations against the petitioner, this Court is not satisfted that conditions for granting bail und.er Section 37 are met'. However, it is noticed that there are no changed circumstances back then in ,J.')r -5- sKs,J Crl"P.No.12l2L of 2025 7 the earlier regular bail petition, and the presen _ bail petition. As such, r-his Court is not inclined to grant thc r.,:lief as sought for, b-y tlre petitioner. There are no mcrits in this criminai Petition, and the same is liable to be clismissed.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is dismisst:d Miscr:llaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. V.KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,",,bi.I,".* S To,

1. The I Addl. Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda, tvledchal Malkajgiri District. 2. The lnspector Narcotics Control Bureau, Hyderabad Zone. 3. The SHOKukatpally Police Station, Kukatpally, Medchal Malkajgiri. 4. One CC to SRl. PORIKA VIKAS RAJ Advocate IOPUC] 5. One CC to SRl. V T KALYAN (SC FOR NCB) Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies PK/PSL \r{r I I I I i I i HIGH COURT DATED:0911012025 (?RPtrR DISMISSED CRLP.No.12121 ot 2025 8cod4 X.-" )a" 4',.-..' ,: , ',; i:- it... 17 lrl0u 16 ..,, - t". *