The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 483 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased tolt is therefore prayed that for the reasons stat,ed above, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petrtioner/Accused No.40 on bail in Crime No.01 of 2025 ol PS., Rachakonda Narcotics on the file of I Additional. District and Sessions Judge, At LB Nagar. Ranga Reddy District. This Petition coming on for hearrng. upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the a rgumerts of Sri Shreyas Reddy Yalagiri ,Advocate for the Petrtioner and Sri. D. Arun Kumar, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana, on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER I t I ! I I I I THE HOITOTIRABLE SUT. JUSTICE K. SI'.IANA CRIMINAL PEf,ITIOIT No.I2817 of 2C125 ORDER: Seeking the Court to enlarge the petit.oner who is accused No.40 in Crime No.O 1 tf 2O25 of arrayed as Rachakonda Narcotics Police Station, T.G. An ri Narcotics Bureau, on bail, the present Criminal Petition is lled.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on reliable information that some Persons are selling cocain: and Ecstasy Pills to the customers, the police conducted raic anrl seized the contraband of 150 grams of Cocaine and 1lO0 Ecstasy Pitls from the possession of accused. As s,uch. police registered the case against tl-e accused for the ertrove ol-fences.

3. Heard Sri Y. Shreyas Reddy, learned cours:l appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, Iearned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing ,)n behalf of the respondent - State.

4. trarned counsel for the petitioner subm.t'.cd that the arrest of Petitioner/Accused No.4O was void at rnitio, as the arresting authorities failed to furnish written gro u eds of arrest 2 sRs", Cd.P.ro.l28l7 of 2O2S under Article 22(ll of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS, rendering the custody unlawful. He contended that t.l:e remand order dated OS.O9 .2025 was mechanically passed without recording specific findings justifying detention, and the remand report relied solely on prosecutorial documents and alleged confessions, which were inadmissible. He further contended submitted that the role of the petitioner in the alleged NDPS offence was not specihed, no contraband or direct evidence was recovered, and the arrest was conducted without independent witnesses, violating procedural safeguards. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the judgments in ttre cases of prabir purkayaetha v. Stater, Vishal faohar Maadrekar v. State of Telangana2 and Mr. ugochu&ru Solomon lJbabuko v. UOI and anothers. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional public prosecutor opposed bail stating thar the allegations against this petitioner are serious in nature, investigation is not yet completed and some of the accused are not yet arrcsted. At this stage, '202r tNsc ltt 'cRL.Rc.xo.228 of 2024 DECTDED oN 2s o2.2o24 3 Criminal Misc. Application (Bait) No.585 of 2021 3 SKS'J Crl.P.Nc.128l7 of2O25 petitioner is not entitled for bail and prayed to ctismiss this petition.

6. This Court, considering submissions madt: by both the learned counsel and reviewing the material available on record, it is noted that the contention of the petit oner that the case is false, fictitious, and fabricated, the case \/zrs registered without fotlowing the due procedure' However, the Additional Pubhc Prosecutor opPoses bail citing commer cial quantity weighing l5O grams of Cocaine and 11OO Ecst:rsy Pills At rhis stage, it is pertinent to note Section 37 of the NDPS Act' which reads as under: i i I I i I I I I i I "37. OlIences to be cogrrizable and non-barlable' ' ( 1) Notwithstanding anything conta'ined i I the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 197d)' (a) every ollence punishable under this Act shrll be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishal)l( for l[offences under section 19 or section 24 or s]ction 27 A anrd also for ollences invoMng comnre rctal quantityl shall tre released on bail or on hi; owrr bond unless-- (i) the Public opportunity to Prosecutor has been givcn an oppose the aPPlication for r;uch release, altd i I 4 sKs", Crt-P.Ito.12Al7 of 2()25 (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, ttre court is satished tiat there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such o(Ience and that he is not likety to commit any ollence whi.le on bail. (2) The limitati,ons on granting of bail specified in (b) of sub-section (11 are in addition to the claus€ linitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 12 of 19741 or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail."

7. In view thereof, Section 37 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 petitioner, 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 dismisscd Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/- G. JYOTHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 'l . The Special Judicial First Class(Excise) Magistrate cum Vth Additional Metroiolitan Magistrate cum Vth Additional Junior Civil Judge, at LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy. -station House Officer, Police Station Rachakonda Narcotics

2. The 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad 4. bne CC to Sri. Shreyas Reddy Yalagiri Advocate [OPUCI 5. Two CD Copbs (our) t t HIGH COURT DATED:1011012025 . l i I ORDER CRLP.No.12817 of 2025 .->:\ ( 2 2 Nr\J 2025 SPA- l\ r(ro o /< 2r, A (.' a' j CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED gc'PRQA F*