The High Court · 2025

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 Naraparaju Aveenesh, sTatding counsel aappearing for the ResPondent. The Court made the following: ORDER: i I : I I I i i i j i ,/,.) THE IIOIOURABLE SMT. JUSTTCE K. SUJAIYA CRIMINAI PETTTION No.t442OoF 2O2S ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 480 & 4g3 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (forshort tsNSSJ by the petitioner/A. I seeking enlargement on bail in connection with cr.NCB.F.No.a8/ t /r/2024/NcB/HzrJ of Kukatpally porice Station, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under section 8(c) r/w.20(bxii)(cr, 27A, 28 and, 29 0f Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances Act, I9g5 (for short trlDpS ActJ.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant who is the Inspector, Narcotics Control Bureau, Hyderabad Zone, filed a complaint stating that on 17:O4.2024 on receiving specific information that one person from Maharashtra ls traflicking a substantial quantity of Ganja to Maharashtra via Warangal-Hyderabad route in Ashok Leyland truck bearing No.MH f 6 CD 6006, started checking the vehicle movements before entering the Ghatkesar Toll plaza coming from Warangal route. At about 1700 hours, they noticed the said vehicre and the same was intercepted and on enquiry he reveared his name t- t_ -2- sKS,J Crl.P.No.14423 of 2ol25 as Anand Ashok Adhaqale who is the petitioner herein and the NCB team informed him about their interception and when he was informed about vehicle search, he declined. on enquiry a.boutganjatraffickingherevealedthatheistransportingmore than 300 packets kept in 25 gunny bags which are concealed underconsignmentof400bagsofAluminiumChloride ChemicalPowderandrecovered'334packetsandeachofthem weretightlywrappedwithbrowncoloradhesivetapesandeach of the packet approximately weighed 2 kgs' The said packets containdarkbrowncolorsuspectedmaterialwithpungent smellandappearedasfloweringandfruitingtopsofaplant. onenquiry,t}repetitionerrepliedthatitisGanjatotalingto 72|.42kgs.Hence,acomplaintwasregisteredagainstthe accused for the above offences'

3.HeardSriPorikaVikasRaj'learnedcounselforthe petitioner and Sri Naraparaju Aveenesh' learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent'

4.Thecontentionoflearnedcounselforthepetitioneristhat petitionerisonlyadriveroftheAshokLeylandTruckandhe hadnoknowledgeofthecontrabandconcealedbeneaththe consignment of Aluminium Chloride bags' The confession statement recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act is 3 sllsn, Crl.P.Io. 1.1423 of 2(125 l inadmissible in view of the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh Vs State of Tamllnadu r, the alleged search and seizure is vitiated for non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of NDpS Act. He further submitted that the petitioner was in judicial custody since

12.04.2024, causing undue hardship to his family, that investigation is completed and charge sheet filed, therefore, there is no question of tampering with the evidence and there is no chance of conclusion of trial in the near future. He also submitted that as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v.CBI2 the accused cannot be kept in jail in the case of prolonged period of trial. He also submitted that the petitioner is taking care of his small children and his aged mother and that their house is also damaged in the recent rains and prayed the Court to allow the Criminal petition by granting regu.lar bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel opposed the bail, stating that huge commercial quantity was seized from the petitioner. If the petitioner is released on bai1, he may abscond and commit similar offences. There are no reasonable r (2021) 4 SCC 1 2 (2022) 10 SCC sl .J Crl.P.Irto. 1442 3 of 2O2S grounds in this case to conclude that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence. The investigation is under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. He also submitted that petitioner cannot be released merely i on the ground of delay and Section 436-A of the Cr.P.C., is not applicable in this case as it is only one of the mechanisms under law and not an absolute ground for release. In the instant case, the seized contraband is a commercial quantit5r and he is in jail for not less.than live years, thus, he cannot be released on bail according to Section 436-A of the Cr.P.C. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that previously the petitioner had filed Crl.P.Nos.11138 and L2121 of 2025 before this Court, seeking the relief of grant of regular bail and the same was dismissed uide order dated 15.09.2025 and

09.10.2025 observing that 'Section 37 of tle /VDPS Act mandates tlnt offences inuoluing commercial quantities be non-bailable, reqtiing reasonable grounds to belieue tle acatsed is not guiltg and unlikelg to commit further offences uthile on bail. Giuen tlw senous set of allegations against tlrc petitioner, this court is not satisfied tlnt conditions for granting bail under section 3z are met'. However, it is noticed that there are no changed -5- sKs,J Crl.P.!to. 14423 of 2o25 circumstances back then in the earlier regular bail petition, and the present bail petition. Further, as seen from the record, the investigation was completed and charge sheet was also filed. 7 - Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the trial Court to conclude the trial, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with Iaw. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed \ /TRUE COPY/ SD/- S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO STANT SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Additional sessions Judge, Medchal Malakajgiri at kushaiguda' 2. The Station House officer, Kukatpally Police station, Hyderabad' 3. The lnspector' Narcotics Control Bureau (NcB), Hyderabad Zone, 4. One CC to$ri. Porika Vikas Raj' Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri. Naraparaju Avaneesh, Standing counsel appering for the Respondnet. [OPUC] 6. rwo cD copies. f k HIGH COURT DATED i2411112025 ORDER CRLP.N o.14423 of 2025 l-i u T 4.. !, (.1 () I I ') .,<' * 20 a l + DISPOSED OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION QA- \o tl- 6