The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 483(2) & 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to cancel the bail granted to the RespondenUA-1 vide Orders dated 22.8.2025 passed by the ll Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Crl.M.P.No.4195 of 2O25 in Cr.No.4 ot 2O25. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 123 s6 0F 2025 Between: The State of Telangana, through the Station House Officer, TG Anti Narcotic Bureau, Hyderabad, rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana,Hyderabad AND Hapuram Bishnoi,S/o.Agramaram Bhinmal Bhinmal Taluq,Jalore DEtrict, Rajasthan R/o. H.No.8B, Jogau Village, ...Petitioner/Respondent ...RespondenUAccused No.2 Petition under Section 483(2) & 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to cancel the bail granted to the Respondent/A-2 vide Orders dated 2'.2.8.2025 passed by the ll Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Crl.M.P.No.4.194 of 2025 in Cr.No.4 of 2025. CRIMINAL PET]T|ON NO: 12357 OF 2025 Between: The State of Telangana, through the Station House Officer, TG Anti Narcotic Bureau, Hyderabad, rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana,Hyderabad. ... Petitioner/Respondent AND Lalaram Bishnoi, S/o Sri Jiva Ram Age. 41 Occ. Welding Shop R/o rented house near Sai Aparlments, Ramnagar, Adilabad N/o Vishnu Nagar, Bavaria (v) Sanchore (tq) Jalore District, Rajasthan. ...RespondenUAccused No.3 Petition under Section 483(2) & 528 ot BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may l:e pleased to cancel the bail granted to the RespondenUA-3 vide Orders dated 01.09.2025 passed by the ll Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Crl.M.P.No.4464 of 2025 in Cr.No.4 of 2025. These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitions and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of Petitioner in all CRLPs and Sri G Santosh Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents in all CRLPs. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER n .)" IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJAIiIA CRTUTNAL PETrrroN Nos.l2BSS. 12856 & 12osz oF 2o2s

29.L2.2o/25 P.No.1 5: Between : The State of Telangana Through the Station House Officer, TG Anti Narcotic Bureau, Hyderabad, rep., by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad 5OO 066 Petitioner/ Resporrdent And Respondent/A.l Savlaram Bishnoi P.No.12 356 of Between : The State of Telangana Through the Station House Off-rcer, TG Anti Narcotic Bureau, Hyderabad, rep., by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State o[ Telangana, Hyderabad 50O 066 Hapura Bishnoi Petitioner/ Respondent And ... Respondent/ A.2 -2- CRL.P.t{o.12357 of 2O25 : Between : The State of Telangana Through tJle Station House Oflicer, TG Anti Narcotic Bureau, Hyderabad, r€p., by the Public Prosecutor, High Cotrt for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad 5OO 066 Petitioner/ Respondent Lalaram l3ishnoi And ... Respondent/A.3 : COMMON ORDER : These criminal petitions are filed under section 483 (2) & 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the Public Prosecutor praying this Court to cancel the bail granted to respondents/A.l to A.3 respectively in Cr.No.4 of 2025 of Narcotic Police Station, Hyderabad TG Anti Narcotic Bureau, Hyderabad, in Crl.M.P.No.4l94 of 2025, Crl.M.P.No.4195 of 2025 and,*464 of 2025 on 22.08.2025 and O1.A9.2O25 by the Il-Additiontrl Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. Hear<l Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioners in all the criminal petitions and Sri G. Santosh Reddy, learned counsel appearing t -3- for the respondent in Crl.p.No.123SS of 2O2S and Crl.P.No. L2357 of 2025.

3. The contention of learned Additional public prosecutor is t]:at the seized contraband is 3.250 Kgs of opium Afeem which is a commercial quantit5r, but the trial court without taking into consideration of the said aspect granted bail to the accused. There is no observation in the impugned orders that twin conditions are satisfied as laid down under section 3z of NDps Act. A.1 is a part of larger opium drug syndicate and he along with his brother A.4 procured opium (Afeem) from A.s in Rajasthan and transported it to Hyderabad and with the assisthnce of A.2 and A.3 he supplied the drug to absconding accused A.6 to A.9 and distributed to various individuals. Therefore, the bail granted by the trial court is without any reasons and simply recorded that A.l to A.3 are in jail from L8.o7.2025 and that material part of investigation is completed. As such, prayed this court to cancet the bail granted to A.1 to A.3 by tlre trial Court. '1, 4- Th€ learned counsel for respondents/A.1 and A.3 submitted that the Narcotics police illegally detained the accused from L5.o2.2o25 to 1g.or.2o2s. on lg.or.2o25, they fabricated a false narrative and remanded the accused to judicial custody. It was alleged that the police pranted drugs -4- and cr€)ated a fabricated confession-cum-seizure panchanama, falsely r:laiming the accused were apprehended at Bowenpally. On 18.Ct7.2025, the police allegedly took the accused from their lockup, along with LT$[s 1 to 5 and LW-14, in police vehicles to Safe Xpress X Road, Bowenpally. There, they staged a scene, brought in LW-7 and LW-8 as panch witnesses, and recorded a video as if the accused had just been apprehended. Before the recordinll, the police allegedly coached the accused on what to say. Aft--r the video recording, the police took the accused to Kompally, placed a Brez.za. car bearing No. GJ 2T CM 1598 at the location, took photographs, and then returned to the Narcotics Police Station, Hyderabad. tt was further submitted that the lelay in producing the accused before a Magistrate amounts to illegal detention. The remand report shows false date of a:rest. In reality, the accused were apprehended on L5.O7-2O2.5 at the Gamjol Toll Plaz.a, Nirmal, while traveling towards Hyderabad. ccrv footage from lanes I to 4 at the toll plaza' would confirm this. A writ petition was f-rled before this Court seel<ing production of CCTV footage of LS.O7.2O2S between 1:()o PM and 6:oo PM from the Narcotics Police station at Abids and the Gamjol roll Plaza, Nirmal. [t was also stated that police ,:ustody has already concluded, no further detention is required, and t]:e accused have not violated any bail ( .,1}, ,.i. ' -5- \ conditions since their release. Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss these petitions.

5. Considering tJre subrnissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, the point to be decided in the present case is whether the trial Court granted bail by considering the rigor of Section 37 of NDPS Act. The order of trial court shows that though it is recorded that seized contraband is commercial quantity, there is no discussion as to tlre twin conditions mentioned in Section 3T of NDps Act are satisfied. Merely stating that investigation is completed is not a ground to grant bail in NDps cases, when the seized contraband is commercial quantity. There is no application of mind by the trial court to the seriousness of offence invorved and merely recorded that investigation is completed without deciding the basic question as to whether bail shourd be granted in view of provisions of section 37 0f NDps Act. As such, bair granted by the trial Court is not in accordance with law and not in satisfaction of Section 3T of NDpS Act. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside ad the bair granted to A.1 to A.3 is hereby cancelled 6' Actordingly, all the criminal petitions are arowed setting aside the orders dated 22.08.2025 pa.ssed in crl.M.p.No.4l95 of 2025 and crr.M.p.No.4rg4 0f 2025 and rhe order da,"d a. \ \\, -5- ol-o9.'.2o25 passed in crl.M.p.No.4464 of 2o2s by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Accused Nos.l to 3 are directecl to surrender before the trial court within fifteen (15) days from the date of this order. Miscellaneous petitions, if arly, pending shall stand closed SD/. S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 ,,TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To, Complex' CJp C"nOhi Bhavan' Nampally' Hyderabad

1. The ll Addilional Sessions Judge' t'lVOe.ralag 2. The Speciriluoi"i"t First cr".l"nrlgiltrutu.tot.Excise cases' Manoranian 3 rhe statio;li;;;'6iii."r, 6il;;#Ju',or"oti"t Police station' rG Anti- 44 TifBS: B{#gf;t}B}or".r,or, Hish court ror the state or reransana at 5 B,"["If?J ;?YSSANT.SH REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI 6. Two CD CoPies fu/ oo*,PsL r HIGH COURT DATED:2911212025 COMMON ORDER lHE S ( 6 i I U .t-. '.1. ,,)/ 1 E Ff8 2026 z 0r .!,.-. * CRLP.Nos.12355, 12356, & 12357 ot 2025 ALLOWING ALL THE CRLPS 1I