The High Court · 2025

Prosecutor High Court of Hyderabad ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 480 & 483 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 petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail tn connection with Cr No. 99 of 2025 on the file of P.S. Excise Ameerpet, during the pendency of inquiry and trial and pass This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T S PRAVEEN KUMAR ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER /1 t/ I// / THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJI NA CRIMINAI, PETITION No.l472l of 20OE o*EpER: This CnminaL Petition is filccl praying tI I i Court to elilargc thc pr:tit-ioner on bail who is arra-vcd as ar:t I secl No'2 in Irllt.No.99 ol' 2025 ol Excise Policc Statior", Ameerpet, Ilr de r:rbar1 rcgiste re cl for thc offence punishable u n I :t- Sectiot-i 8 {t:) r-lu.Section 22(b) and Section 20 (b) (ii)(A) ol- rc Narcotic Dl-Lgs atn<i Ps-vcho,tropic Substzrnccs Act, 1985 (liir rhort 'Nl)PS ,r\{ I I 'lhe Lrricf facis of t he c:rse are that on i l ') . relizrble iuformation abc,ut possession, salc and t'

19.2025 on nsportation ol' NII)MA :rrtd Gartja, the ProhiiliLion ar-rd il :r:ise poitcc ccirrllrcted raid Lresicle Sai'lcja Photo Studio, Bar-rj r lor-rnd illegal serle, possession and transportatiol'i a Ilills, :urd .l t he abovc r:on trabancl :rnd seized 70 gra-ms ol Cianja and I ' 5 grams of MDMA froin the possession of accused. Hence, a case was registcred against the accused for the above offenc'r

3. Hear<i Sri T.S.Praveen Kumar, learnecl :ounsel lbr pctitioner, and Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, lcarn: 1 Additional Pirblic Prosecutor appearing on behalf of thc ;espo:l lent-State. I 2 ._ I, ,::.1

4. Learned counsel lor the pelitioner submittecl that thc petitioner is innocent ol thc allcged offences and has been lalsely implicated basing on thc confession :itatement of co accused. He cortended th.t pctitionei has no role in this crime and no contraband is seized from his possession. Further material part of investigation is completed except illing of charge sheeL. Petitioner is in jail fron 72.O9.2O25. Therefore, prayed this Courl to allou. this criminal perition, granting thc relief of barl to petitioner 5- On the other hancl, ie:rrned Adclitional public prosecu[or opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that even though the scized quantity of garla is small the MDMA seizccl is 14.5 grams which fails undcr commercial quantit1.,, therelorc, the question of grantrng bail to the petitioner does not arise. Hence, he pra,ved the Court to d ismiss the crinr iner I pcritiorr.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on rccord, it is noted that the contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the case against the petitioner is false and fictitious, whereas, the learned Additional pubhc prosecutor opposes the petition, citing I 3 [hat seized MDMA is cornmercial quantity. Th:Lt [:ing so, at rhis stage, it is pertinent to note Section 37 of th: llDIrS Act, r,r'l-rich reads as under '37 Oft-elrces lo l)c cognizable and non-bailabk:. i \o'ir,tl'ster|lrrnq an\'tlli|lg .untaine.l in Ihe ('nrl, Crimirral Procc.lrrre, 1973 12 of 1974],, (a) ,r'.i ,. olfcnr:e pLinishablc undcr this Act shall be cogniza ri ': (b) no p<:rson accrrsed of an offenr:e punishable l[ofli:rtr:r:s under section 19 or section 24 or- sec r 274 arrd alsri lor offcnces involving colnrrr(it l qu:Lnrit\'l shall Lre released on bail or on his ort,r'r b r unlcss (i) rhc Plrblic oi)Portr Ln itr to rck'irs;r:, antl Prosec u tor opposc the h:rs been applica tron gl\re n ftir s )i (l f. (LL) \vhe|e the Publi<: Proscr:utor- opposes r ( .rpllil(ialio11. 11rc court is satisfiecl thal Lher€. , ( rcason:rble q|ourrcls fcrr believing that he is nol $ i \ ol sLrclr ollcricc and that he is not likel1, to corr r jt aor ollirncc,,rirrle on bai[. {2} 'l1rt: lirnitatiolrs on granting ol baiI specifiecl l cLause (b) ol- sub section (1) are in addition t() I r' lrmiLatrons urrder the Code of Criminal Pr-ocerl r t. 1()73 (2 of ',9741 or any other la\r, for tlre timc bein I r. f<rrcxr on granling of bail."

7. From the above extracted portion, it is clear t rat Sectiolr 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that offencr r involving conmerciaI quantitics be non-bailable, requiring rcasonable -l I I i I I I I I I I i i I l: E 4 '",,, grounds to believc the acctrscd is not guiltr, and unlikcly ro t:omrlit furtlter olfenccs q.hile r,n ltnil. Grvcn thc scrious .Uegations:rg:rir-rst thc petitr..t:r, ti)1s Co,rt is rt.t sutis[iccl thal conditions for granring bail under Section 37 arc rnet. TItar ?lpart, it is pcrtincnt to note tltaL iis pcr tl.rc lnatcrial on rccorrl. pintct Jacie casc is mzrde against t hc petitioncr.

8. In Iight of thc abovc rlis< rissron, rl.ris Court is of t hc opinion tha( therc are no mcr.its ir-r this crimir.ral l)etition an<,1 thc sume is liablc to be disn-rissccl

9. Accorciingly, this Criminal Petition is cjismissed Miscellancous zrpplications, il ar-ry pcnrling, shall staltd <:loscd i J To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.B.REKHA RANI ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The I Additional Sessions Judge at Nampally, Hyderabad, Hyderabad District. 2. The SHO Ameerpet Excise Police Station, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to SRl. T S PRAVEEN KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two Copies to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Tetangana at Hyderabad [OUT] PK/PSL

5. Two CD Copies 7a- HIGH COURT DATED:2711112025 ( CRLP.No.14721 of 2025 i I I I t ,..5.'. 1 .:," '\,. { -\ '.' - -.r'-y' -.rV CRIMINAL PEITITION IS DISMISSED. (l| \o \1?