The High Court · 2025

Petition under Seetions 480 & 483 of BNS,$ praying that in th€ circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail in C.O.R.No.53 of 2025 of Excise Police Station, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District, pending before the 1st Additional District and Session Judge At LB Nagar Court, on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the ctrcumstances of the case, and thus render justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Porika Vikas Raj, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent, The Court made the following: ORDER // i/ / THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJITNA CRIMINAL PETITION No.L2275 of 2O2li ORDER: This criminal pe tition is trled by the pe titioner/A2 seeking regular bail in connection with C'O'R'No 5ll of 2025 of Excise Police St.ation, Hayathnagar District, RangzL Reddy' on the hle of I Additional District and Sessions 'Judge' at LB.Nagar. The offences allegeci :rgainst the pcti[ioner are under Sections 8 (c) reacl wttin 22 ic) of the Narcotir: Drugs and Psychotropic Substances -q.ct, 1985 (for short'NDPS Act)' The case of the prosecuiiol is ihat the petiti )Iler and A.1 2. rvere in possession ol huge cornmercial quantit-v of 17'9 lkgs of Alprazolam. The petitionei is in judicial custody since

04.06.2O2-r.

3. Heard Sli P.Vikasraj , learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Doddla. ir:arned AdCit;onal Public Prosecutor appearing on behatt'oi respondent - St''l-e The contention cf iearned counsel for the p'etitioner is 4. that the petitioner rvas arresied on 04 06 2025 ar d since then he is languishing in jail. He submitted that petitioner is innocent of the offences as :r llegeil and is \4:rongiy implicated 2 in the case. He further submitted that the petitioner has got fixed abode and is ready to furnish sureties and abide by the conditions that may be irnposed by this Court and undertake to cooperate with the investigation. As such, prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail on the ground that the contraband seized from the accuscd is a huge commercial quantity. Further the investigation is not yet completed and at this stage, if the petitioner is released on bail, it may cause hardship to the investigaling agency and lhere are no changed circumstances from the earlier bail application. As such, prayed this Court to dismrss th is bail application.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through [he material placed on record, it is noted that the contenlion of learned counsel for petitioner is that the case against the petitioner is lalse and hctitious, whereas, the learned Additional Pubiic Prosecutor opposes the petition, citing that seized contraband is commercial quantity. That being so, at this stage, it is pcrtinent to note Section 37 of the NDPS Act, w,hich reads as under: l. /t /., // ( /? /1 3 "37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable - (1) Notwithstanding anvthing contained in the Ccd: of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of i974),--(a) ev':rr offence punishable under this Act shail be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable fcr l[offences under sectior] 19 or section 24 or secllotl 27A arrd. also for offer':ces involving commer':ilrl quantityl shall be released trn bail or on his r:rvn bond unless-- (i) the Pubiic opportunity to Prosccu tor opposc tht: has been gi'"en ai'l application for s rc h release, and (ii) \,here the Public Pri)secuLor opposes application, the cour-t is salisfied that there reasonable grounds tor beiieving that he is guilty of such olfenrie.illil ihat he is nor likei commit any offence '.r'hile on l;aii. !lre :,..e noI (2) The limitations on granling of bail specifierl in clause (b) of sub-seclion (1) ar:: in addition to "1e limitations under the Cocle of Criminal Proceci rtr e, 1973 (2 ot 197 4l or anl' other larv for the time b ring in force on granting ol bail."

7. From the above extracted portion, it is clear rhat Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandaies that offenc::; involving commercial quantities bc non-bailable, requirin 1 r-easonable I I 4 grounds to beiieve the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. Given the serious allegations against the petitioner, this Court is not satisfied tlrat conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are rnet.

8. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there are no merits in this criminal petition and the same is liable to be dismissed-

9. AccorCingiy, this Criminai F'etition is dismissed. Misccllaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. t I SD/. L, VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The IAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, LB Nagar, Hyderabad

2. The Xlll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Distrcit, LB Naqar, Hyderabad

3. The Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Cases cum V Metropolrtan Magistrate, Cyberabad at LB Nagar

4. The Station House Officer, Excise Police Station, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy 5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chadapalli 6. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

7. One CC to Sri Porika Vikas Raj, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Iwo CD Copies ABK,/PSL \qr HIGH COURT DATED: 2610912025 ORDER CRLP.No.12275 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION q o (J .aa ). t 1 t'i0l ?0ffi * {,SpnI \:-O \\ COPKA k-'