The High Court · 2025

Hyderabad, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad ...RESPON DENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Sections 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 bail in Crime No.75 of 2025, dated 11.08.2025 on the file of the Prohibition and Excise Station, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri UMESH SINGH ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Arun Kumar Dodla the Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER iTHE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SU.JAI{IL CRI*fINAL PETITION No.12352 of 2CI25 {t}${DEbl: Seeking the Court tc-i enlarge the petitio'aer i,r,ho is €irrirrled as accllsed No. i in Crime No.75 al 2A25 ol'Prohibirion *.nd Ercisr: Police Station, Dhooipet, Hyderabad, cn bail. the prcseiit Cr'rininal Petition is filed.

2. The brief ia-cts cf the case are that the peii:ione'i':iicng 'uvith co-ar:cused was found in possession of i.51O kgs of ganja, i2.29 F{rams of MDMA, and 5 dots of LS} iell.v. and that hs l\ras engaged in sale and purchase of tiarcc;iic subslancilli iiir profit.

3. Hearii Sri Umesh Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of i-he petitioner as rvell as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Aciciiicnai Fl:biic Prosecutor appearing on bciiaif c{ the respontlent - State. 4 i-earnecl counsel for the petitioner submilted thai the aiiegzrtions; lyeie false and baseless, and that no maierial e.,ridence r:cnnected the petitioner with the aiiegeci. crime except the inadmissible confessional statements of co- V 2 SKS,J Crl.P.Ho.12332 of 2o25 accused. ivhich couid not be reiied Lipon in \iielv of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu and Nikhil Chandra lHondal v. State of West Bengal. He further submitted that lne peiitioner ,*'as innocent, a lau,-abiding citizen, handicap-,pcd, and rhe sole breadu'inner of his family, with aged and aiiing pa.rents. lle contended that the petitioner had no role in the transport r:r sale of narcotics, that the investigation was almost cornpleted, and that there rvas no possibility of abscondine or tamperin,_g s,ith evidence. Therelbre, he pra,veci the Court to grant. baii io the petitioner by ailowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposecl the submissions made by the iearned counsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner is a cirug pecidler. He further submitted that the investigation is in progress and if the petitioner is reieased on bail, at this stage, he may tamper u,ith the evidence and may threaten the w'itnesses. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. This Court, considering submissions rnade by both ihe learned counsel and reviewing the material available on record, it is noted that the contention of the petitioner Lhat rhe 3 SI(S,J Crl.P.I{o. 12352 ot 2025 case is ial;c, ilctitious, and fabricated, the case wirs registereci ''vithout folil:,,,,"ing the due procedure. However, tiic Additional Plil,:1i,.: i)i'i;:,.i:ir,cr- oppcses l:ziil citing commercial quaniit:, ..r,..:igi,urg i.;:() l<gs oi ganja, L2.29 grams c{ Mi)MA, anri 5 .Cr.lr-s ,;i L-aD .,:;ii_r'. At this stage, it is perr.inent to eote Section 37 ol the l.lDPS Act, r,l,,hich reads as under: '31-. Offences to be cognizable anci non-ttailable. - 1 i i ivonvithstairciing alr.thing cor:'iained ia the ilr-'rlt' ,-;r'Criminai Procedure, 1973 i2 of D7!. -(a) r:vtir oiience puirishable under this Act shail be ... ,....;..,., t.l-. ( : i1--:,r! \,.;; - .\ f it) -.:i: pei'son accused of an offence punishabh-- for - ir:fie;ices under section 19 or section 24 or seclion ?.7 !, and also for offences involi,ing commercial <luiintit-r'] shall be released on bail or on his own iil;n.:i lir-rless-- iii the Public Prosecuror has been given an olnoiiiinit-v to oppose the application for such rt:icrisi:, a.nd i'ii i.'here the Pubiic Prosecutor opposes the arpr:iir:ation, the court is satisfied that there are ic:i-..onable grounds for beiieving that he is not ilurlr., :f such offence a:rd that he is not ]ikei,, to <:orrrrnft aitrv offence rvhiie on bail. (2) I'he limitations on granting of bail specifierl in c:iarise (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the iiirri':ations under the Code of Criminal Proceci,-rre, 4 SKS,J Crl"P.Nc.12352 oI 2425 1973 (2 of l97al or an_v other iarv for the tir.e beinq in force on granting oi bail,"

7. In view thereof, Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates thal offcnces invoiving ccmmercial quantities be r-ron-baiiabie, i":quiring reaisona-hlc grounds to believ(: the' a-ccLiscil is not guiity and unlikely 1o commit further offences u,hile on baii. Gii.en the serious aliegations against the petitioncr. r-his Court is not satrsfied that conciitions for granting baii uticier Sectit.,i: 37 are met. Therefore, the criminal petition lacks ,'nr:rit and the sarne is iiable to be ciismissed.

8. Accordingi;,', 'Lhis Criminai Petitron is disneissed Misceiianeous applications, if any pending. shall stand ciosed SD/. P.CH. NAGABH USHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lAddl. sessions Judge, Nampally at Hyderabad, Hyderabad 2. The sHo Prohibition and Excise Station, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to SRl. UMESH SINGH Advocate [OPUC] 4. One cc to sRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [oUT] 5. Two CD CoPies PK/PSL \cr HIGH COURT DATED:0711012025 DISMISSED CRLP.No.12352 of 2025 a. cd" YzJ$d"' 'a't> I I ). {llE S r,q I E tll0u ztut ; * l PATC