NDPS substance and ttre same was not in possession of v. Therefore, he prayed this Court to allow the criminal

Petition under Section 482 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 pertitioner/Accused no.5 on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the Fir no. 10 ol 2025 on the file of P.S Cyberabad Narcotics , TG Anti -Narcotics Bureau This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri KANDURI KOUSHIK ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri D Arun Kumar Asst Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER i I t I THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.133O2 of2o25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed before this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.S in connection with FIR.No.10 of 2025 before the Cyberabad Narcotics Police Station, TG Anti Narcotics Bureau, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 2l(c), 25,25-A,27-Aand,29 of NDPS Act.

2. The brief facts of the case revolves around the allegations of a large-scale Ephedrine manufacturing and trafhcking operation, with the petitioner, Maddu Prasad, implicated as a key conspirator. The investigation led to the seizure of 225.16 kgs of Ephedrine from a flat in Hyderabad, and four accused were apprehended. The role of petitioner is allegedly linked to his position as Director of PNM Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., with allegations that he conspired with others to manufacture and sell the contraband. 4 -) I I I l 1 i I I 1 2 \

3. Heard Sri Koushik Kanduri, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri D.Arun Kumar, Iearned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the offences as alleged, and stated that the allegations against tl.e petitioner are with regard to large-scale Ephedrine manufacturing and tralficking operation, but he averred tJlat the said substance is not an NDPS substance and ttre same was not in possession of petitioner. In support of the same, he relied on the judgment rendered by Delhi High Court in the case of Joy Mitra Vs. I[arcotics Control Bureau r , and also the judgments rendered by this Court in Crl.P.Nos.414O and 6564 of 2025. Therefore, he prayed this Court to allow the criminal petition, granting the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, vehemently, opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner, and submitted that the 1 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3016 i I F a /t 1 involvement of petitioner in manufacturing and trallicking of Ephedrine is established through co-accused statements and seizure of reactors and raw materials from PNM Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., a compzrny owned and controlled by the petitioner, holding the post of Director. He contended that the active role of petitioner in the operations of compzrny and the prima facie evidence suggest his culpability. I Therefore, he prayed tJ.e Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. Having regard to ttre rival submissions made, and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that it is the specific contention of learned counsel for petitioner that Ephedrine is not a narcotic substance and does not fall under NDPS Act, whereas, it is imperative to note that in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Central Government issued two successive regulatory frameworks, the NDPS (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 1993 and its successor, the NDPS (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 2O13, both aimed at controlling substances that may be used in the I F r€ 'if ,g 4 manufacture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. The 1993 Order was premised on the Government's opinion that such regulation was necessal/ and expedient in the public interest, arrd it laid down procedural safeguards for manufacture, sale, transport, and reporting. The 2013 Order, which repealed and replaced tJre earlier framework, reallirmed the statutory basis under Section 9-A and introduced a more structured regime of registration, documentalion, and inter-zonal coordination, thereby strengthening oversight over controlled substances in alignment with evolving enforcement needs and intemational obligations.

7. That being so, it is clear that Ephedrine is a controlled substance and petitioner is the Director of PNM Life Sciences R/t. Ltd., having active role in the operations of company where huge quantity of Ephedrine was found in possession and its manufacturing process was in operation. Therefore, it cannot be held that petitioner had no role in the offences as alleged against him, and he was unaware of any procedures and functioning of PNM Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Taking into consideration the fact that the investigation f 5 / in the case is not yet completed, this Court is of the firm view that petitioner is not entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail. There are no merits in this criminal petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8 Accordingly, tJlis Criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if ,ny pending, stand closed. SD/-P C SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Excise) cum Vth Additional Junior Civil Judge cum V Additional Judicial Magistrate at L.B.Nagar , Rangareddy District

2. The Station House Officer, Police Station CyberabadNarcotics, TG Anti - Narcotics Bureau (TGANB), Hyderabad

3. One CC to SRl. KANDURI KOUSHIK Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderbad [OUTI

5. Two CD Copies AG/ABK \qr HIGH COURT DATED:3011012025 \) ( * { HE SiA 2l JAll 20ffi .sP/{ri:' ,' "4. ._t -a' \t ORDER CRLP.No.13302 ot 2025 IS DISMlSSED CRLP ,{D gr-6r\a?