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 RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TI},ANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. S(I, IANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15266 of 2O25 DATE: 11.12.2O25 BETWEEN: S. Narendra Goud petitioner/ a ;cused No.6 And The State of Telangana, B.p by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. ..RespondentT' omplainant ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed praying th s Court ro enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as ir rcused No.6 in Crime No.O9 of 2025 before the Hyderabad Na: :otics police Station, TG Anti Narcotics Bureau, registered fo r the offence 2 SI(s,J Crl.P.No.l5266 of2025 punishable uncler Section 8(c). 22(c), 27 A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS ActJ.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had been arrayed as accused No.6 in Crime No.O9 of 2025 of PS Narcotics, Hyderabad, for the above allcged offences. The allegatron against him was that accused No.1, who was allegedly manufacturing Alprazolam at the Medha School premises, supplied about 500-75O grarns weekly to the petitioner for mixing with toddy. The petitioner was arrested on O5-11-2025. No recovery was made from him, he was never present at the alleged premises, and there was no seizure of toddy or proof of adulteration. The purported G Pay transactions were explained as hnancial help to a relative and not connected to any narcotic activity.

3. Heard Sri Raja Gopallavan Tayi, 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. 3 SKS,J Crl.l,. Io.15266 of 2025 4 . Learned counsei for the petitioner subnl 1 -ed that the entire case against the petitioner rested solely cr the alleged confessionzrl statement of a co-accused, vvhich was inadmissibie in lau, and that there was no mat( rial to shorv possession, purchase, transport, storage, manufer, ture, or sale of any conrraband by the petitioner. No d: ivery proof, transport recorcl, or banking evidence lina rd him to Alprazolam. He contended that the invoked sr:, tions of the NDPS Act did not apply and that all a11eg etions were speculative. The petitioner was in judicial cr stody since

06.11.2025. Therefore, he prayed the Court to gant bail to the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition. .5 On the other hand, learned Additional hrbl c Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned c,) tnsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner is a drug reddler. He further submitted that the investigation is in pr-r gress and if the petitioner is released on bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the evidence and may threaten the witnessr: Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition

6. This Court, considering submissions mad: by both the learned counsel and reviewing the material rvailable on 4 sKs,,J Crl.P.No.l5266 of 2025 record, it is noted that the contention of the petitioner that the case is false, hctitious, and fabricated, the case was registered without follou,ing the due procedure. However, the Additional Public Prosecutor opposes bail citing commercial quantity weighing 500-750 grams of Alprazolam. At this stage, it is pertinent to note Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under: "37. Offr:nces to be cognizable and non bailable. -- (1) Notwithstanding an1,thing contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 12 of l97a), @) every offence punishable under this Act shall bc cognizable; (b) no person accused of al offence punishable'for l[offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27 A ar.d also for offences involving commercial quantityl shall be released on bail or on his olvn bond unless-- (i) the Public opportunity to release, and Prosecutor has been given an oppose the application for such (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfred that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence ard that 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 (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, . #4*Hl*EF!r7 -'ciF +* 7 '/ 5 SI(S,J Crl.I. o.15266 of2025 1973 (2 of 1974) or alry other law for the time b, ing in force on granting of bail."

7. In vieu' thereof. Section 37 of the NDPS A rt mandates that offences involving commercial quantities bc r on-bailable, requiring reasonable grounds to believe the acc used is not gttilty and unlikely to commit further offences rv rile on bail. Given the serious allegations against the petition: ', this Court is not satisficd that conditions for granting bail L1 rder Section 37 are meL. Therefore, the criminal petition lac[. s merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismir; red. Misccllaneous applications, if any pendinp;. shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- A.JAYASREE II TANTREGISTRAR \': iECTION OFFICER

1. The llAdditional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, Hyderabaj District 2 The Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise Cas :s,,po'rr''"1411"1' H'1de' 'L*1 3. The Superintendent,Chenchalguda Jail, i::'.1:'t ;' ''t --- ' '-' 4. The SHO Hyderabad Narcotics, TG Narcotics Bureau (T( ANB) 5. One CC to SRl. RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI Advocate [C'l UC] 6.TwoCCstoPUBLICPROSECUTOR,HighCourtforthe:itateofTelangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. Two CD Copies PK/PSL \q- HIGH COURT DATED:1 '111212025 CRLP.No.15266 of 2025 i{ THE .t ) 3 rl J/iiv tilt P ,:. *'\.Ot.^ '\i.YPr,Tr.i-1,-: ) * CRIMINAL PEITITION IS DISMISSED. ,lb \O