The High Court · 2025

State of Telangana, Rep. Cyberabad Narcotics P.S Through its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. ... Respondent Petition under Section 480 and 483 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant bail to the petition erlAccused No.2 in Crime No. 09/2025 of Cyberabad Narcotics P.S , registered for the offences under Section 8(c) r/w 22,29,2O(b)(iiXB) of the NDPS Act, 1985, considering the rebuttal of presumption under Section 54 NDPS Act. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P Nishith Raj ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri D Arun Kumar, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF'I'] )LANGANA AT ITYDERABAI) THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SI JANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14559 of 2r) 15 DATE: o,4.12.2o25 BETSIEEN: Jadhav Nikhil .....petitioner7 r ccused No.2 And The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad. ..... Respondent/ :omplainant ORDER This Criminal Petition is f,ried seeking tL is Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as a :cused No.2 in Crime No.09 of 2025 before the Cyberabad Nar --otics police Station, TGANB, registered for the offences punis rable under Sections 8(c) read with 22(c]|,2o(bxiixA) and 29 o1 ,IDpS Act. !- \! 7 SKS,J Crl,P.No.14559 of 2025

2. The brief facts of the case are that the pelitioner, and another individual, were apprehended by the Cyberabad Narcotic PS on 24.09.2025, with 10.18 grams of MDMA and

52.67 grams of Hydroponic Ganja. The petitioner claimed he was falsely implicated and had no knowiedge of the narcotic substance.

3. Heard Sri P. Nishith. Raj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been falsely implicated at the instance of the de facto complainant and had no connection with the alleged offence and that no specihc allegations were made against the petitioner, that the ingredients of Section 8(c) read with 22(cl ' 2O(bXii)(A) arlld 29 of NDPS Act were not attracted, and that the police had registered the case with ulterior motives. He contended that the petitioner had no criminal antecedents, was a private employec supporting his family, and that investigation was almost completed. Therefore, he prayed the .7 3 sKs,J Crl.l No.14559 of 2025 Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowin5 .his Criminal Petition

5. On the other hand, learned Additional pub Lc prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned c< unsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner is a drug reddler. He further submitted that the investigation is in pr rgress and if the petitioner is released on bai[, at this stage, hr may tamper with the evidence and may threaten the witness:;. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. This Court, considering submissions made by both the learned counsel and reviewing the material rvailable on record, it is noted that the contention of the petiti ,ner that the case is false, hctitious, and fabricated, the case \e rs registered without following the due procedure. However, tl e Additional Public Prosecutor opposes bai t citing commer ( ral quantity weighing 1O.18 grams of MDMA and 52.e., grams of Hydroponic Ganja. At this stage, it is perti I rnt to note Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which reads as unde - "37. Offences to be cognizable and non-baila rle. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained rn :he Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of L97!. (a) 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.14559 of 2025 every offence punishable under this Act shall be cogrlizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for 1[offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and. also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-- (i) the Public opportunity to release, ald Prosecutor oppose the has been given an application for such (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specihed in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1,973 (2 ol \9741 or any other law for the time being in force on grarting 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. 5 sKs,J I{o.14559 of 2O25 Crl

8. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is dismi ;sed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pendir 1 , shall stand closed Sdi- ,. PONNA KRISHNA ASSI}TANT REGISTRAR I \-. SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPYII To, '1 . The Special Judicial First Class l\/agistrate cum Vth Adrli ional Junior Civil Judge cum V Additional Judicial Magistrate, Ranga ReCc y District at L.B. Nagar

2. The Station House Officer, Cyberabad Narcotics Police { tation, Cyberabad 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Sle le of Telangana at Hyderabad.(OUT)

4. One CC to Sri P Nishith Raj, Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies TTS/Sa HIGH COURT DATED:0411212025 :-,_ TI c C) 0 6 fti 2[26 -rr' !,: t sr,, :.r:'''a"' ORDER GRLP.No.14559 o12025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION J-x s :=l'iae