Hyderabad High Court · 2025

stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner herein on bail in connection with FIR No.323 of 2024 on the file of the BDL Bhanoor police Station, Sangareddy District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the argurnents of Mr. R.Tirupathi, Advocate for the Petitioner and sri syed yasar Mamoon, Additional public Prosecutor for the Sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER: '?'\ I THE IIONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMIITAL PETITION No.16159 of 2o24 ORDER: The present Criminal Petition is frled pralng this Court to enlarge the petitioner who is arrayed as ar:cused No.3 in FIR.No.323 ctf 2024 before the BDL Bhanoor Police Station, Sangareddy District, on bail.

2. The brref facts of the case are that on October 2a1,2024, the police intercepted Accused No.l (A.1) at Kardanoor village cross roads rvhile he was transporting a large quantity of galja in his red Brezza car bearing No.MH 46 RA 17OCr. Upon searching th,e vehicle, the police found 25 dry ganja packets wrapped in brown paper, weighing approximately 5O kilograms. During the interrogalion, A. 1 confessed to the crime and implicated four other individuals, Accused Nos. 2 to 5 (A.2-A.5), stating that they were also involved in the offence. Based on A. l's confessional statement, the police arrested petitioner and other accusr:d on Novemb er 16, 2024. After recording their confessiona.l statements, petitioner and A.5 were rema.nded to judicial custody. The offences alleged against the petiti,tner are 2 srG,, Crl.P.a{o.16159 of mZ4 under Sections 8(c) and 2O(bXii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs. and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 19g5. Aggrieved thereby, tJ is criminal petition is frled.

3. Heard Sri R.Thirupathi, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional public Prosecutor for respondent - State.

4. l,earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person who is falsely implicated in the case based on the confessional statement of Accused No. l. He asserted that the petitioner, a native of Odisha, is an electrical worker and has no connection to the case. He contended that the vehicle used in the alleged commission of the offence belongs to Accused No.l, and that tle involvement of petitioner is solely based on the confessional statement, which is not substantive evidence. He lamented that the FIR and remand case diar5r would reveal that tJ:e alleged ganja was seized from Accused No. 1, and nothing was found on the petitioner. He averred that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since November 16, 2024, which is causing hardship to his family. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition. !(- 3 SKS,J C,l.P.No.16l59 of 2024

5. On the c,ther hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the pelitioner stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature, and that he was implicated in the crime case based on the confession of 'A1, in whose possession Sol:gs of Ganja was seized in 25 packets' Therefore, he averred that at this stage, the question of granting of bail to the petitioner <loes not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal Petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the rnateria,l placed on record, it is noted that the limited grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case and that he is no way concerned with the alleged offence, whereas, it is the specific stand of learned Additional Public Prosecutor that petitioner was implicated in the crime based on the confession of A1, in whose possession 5O kgs of Ganja was seized '

7. At this stage, it is imperative to note that the contraband seized from th,e petitioner is a commercial quantity. That being I I I I i I i I I 4 sr(sJ c.l.P.No-16r59 0f 2(,2a (i so, it is relevant to extract Section 37 of the NDpS Act, which reads as under: '37. Offences to be cognizable and non_bailable. -_ (l) Notwithstanding aaything contained in the Code of Crimind Procedure, lg73 (2 of 1974),__(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for l[offences under section 19 or secti,on 24 or section 27 A arl'd also for olTences involving commercial quantityl shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, (ii) where the public prosecutor opposes application, the court is satisfred that there reasonable grounds for believing tlat he is rrot guilty of such offence and tJ.at he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (l) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminat procedure, 1973 (2 ot t9741 or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.. (- 5 SKS,J C.r{. P. No. 16159 of m2{ I

8. In view thereof, it is clear that Section 37 of the NDpS Act maldates that offences involving commercia_l quantities be non- bailable, reqr-dring reasonable grounds to believe the acr:used is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. Given the sedous set of allegations against the petitioner, this Court is not satisfred that conditions for grar ting bail under Section 37 are met. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that this criminal petition lacks merit ald the same is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed Miscellemeous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR i- l, *,sE;iro-r,i OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 The Additional Jr"rdicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy District. The Station Hou:;e Officer, Bhanoor Police Station, Sangareddy District One CC to Mr. R Tirupathi, Advocate (OPuC) Two CC to Addl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG) Advocate High Court for the state of Telangana [OLlTl 5 Two CD Copies w j I I t t I I ; ; HIGH COURT DATED:08.01 .2025 ,4 ;.'- ) g TH€ g IA o ,l 0 Frg ?trE --\:. \ l' 2 C' { ORDER GRLP.No. 16159 of 2024 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ffi'