The High Court · 2025

This Petitaon coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri p prabhakar Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and sri syed yasar Mamoon, Additional public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER THI} HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K' SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No'158@ of 2o24 ORDER:r The present Criminal Petition is frled praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.l in Crime No.321 of 2024 before the Narsampet Police Station, Warangal District' registered for the offence:; punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 2O(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on bail' 'I'he brief facts of the case are that on 03'08'2024' 2. at around 17:3O hours, the Sub [nspector of Police at Narsarnpet reported that while conducting vehicle checks at Karnalapur Cross Road, two cars - a Z'esL and an Ertiga - were stopped, and upon inspection ' 128 packets of dry ganja weighing 25O 9OO kg were seized from the vehiclt:s. The drivers, fled the scene' while petitioner was appre)rended. The petitioner disclosed that the ganja was hidde.einthecars,leadingtoarrestandtheregistration .4,.1 2 SKS,J Crr-P. No- r 5809 of 202a of a case against the petitioner. Agrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is l-rled.

3. Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of ttre alleged offences and has been falsely implicated to harass him. He lamented that a false panchanama was extracted from petitioner, and that he had no knowledge of the transportation of ganja. He averred that the petitioner did not purchase or possess any ganja, and the seiznd ganja was for.rnd in the Zest Car, with which he had no connectiion. He asserted that the role of petitioner in the purchase of ganja was not mentioned in the panchanama or remand case diary. He further contended that the petitioner did not drive the TES| Cat on the alleged date and was not engaged as a driver to transport ganja. Therefore, prayed this Court to \ : i I i I I i, !t !tI 1 i I l 1t :l I : I I 3 SKS,J Crl.I'No.l5809 ol2024 grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional hrblic Prosecuttor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel. for the petitioner stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are of serious nature as the matter revolves around seizure of 128 packets ol' dry ganja rveighing 25O-9OO kgs from the vehicles and that petitioner apprehended at the scene' Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition' I{aving regard to the rival submissions made and 6. on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the limited grievance of learned counsel for the petitione r is that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case and that he is no way concerned with the alleged offence and that false panchanama was extracted from the petitioner, whereas, it is the specihc stand of learned Additional Public Prosecutor that 128 packets of dry 4 SKS,J Crt.P.No.l5809 of 2024 ganja weighing 250.9O0 kgs was seized frorn the petitioner.

7. At this stage, it is imperative to note that the contraband seized from the petitioner is a commercial quantity. That being 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 anything contained in tl e Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (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 section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving com:nercial quantityl shall be released on bail or oit his own bond unless-- l i : ! I I l! ,l I I i ,1 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.l5809 of 2024 (i) the Public Prosecutor has been 6;iven an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, ald (ii) where the Public Prosecutor oPposes the application, tJ:e court is satisfred that ttlere are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any oflence 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 Crirninal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 19741 or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail."

8. l.n view thereof, it is clear that 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 unlikcly to commit further offences while on bail. Givr:n the serious allegations against the petitioner, and the fact that he is I I 6 SKSJ Crl.P.No- 15809 of2024 the prime accused, this Court is not satisfied that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are met. Therefore, the criminal petition lacks merit and tlre same is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shalt stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/-,MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / To, CTION OFFICER 'l . The I Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal 2. The Station House Officer, Narsampet Police Station, Warangal District 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. One CC to Sri P Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate tOpUCl 6. Two CD Copies ADI(gh ?* i I i I I I I I I I t ': HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 ORDER CRLP.No.15809 ot 2024 1 f,E S.r4 I6- (J' c (-) ?5 tt:-: ?lZ5 i+t\ 7 C ). DISMISSING THE CRLP ?+ vFlr{ 1<n>-* >