The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana,, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 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 petitioners on bail in connection with Crime No.104 ol 2024, dated.25-09-2024 of P.S., Talamadugu, Adilabad District, Telangana for the offences under Section B (C) R/w 20(b) (ii) (C),27-A,29 oI NDPS Act '1985 This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R.SUSHANTH REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K, SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15922 of 2o24 ORAL ORDER: Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.6 and 9 in Crime No.104 of 2O24 of Talarnadugu Police Station, Adilabad District, on bail, the present Criminal Petition is frled.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.09.2024, the complainant received reliable information that two individuals were driving a brown Eicher van with the number UK-08-CB-5318 from Adilabad to Kinwat, Maharashtra, carrying prohibited ganja. The information I was immediately passed on to superior ofhcers, who set up a checkpoint at Laxmipur Village. At 8:O0 am, a brown Eicher container with the number UK-O9-CB-5318 arrived, and upon search, 864.27 kg of ganja was found. The driver and cleaner, identified as A3 and A4, were taken into custody. During interrogation, A3 revealed that he was part of a gang led by Pandit Ji, Ashujain, and rl/ 2 SKSJ CrI.P.No.15922 of 2024 Sonu Ansari, which smuggled ganja from Malkangiri to Maharashtra. Accused No.3 was promised a commission of Rs. 1.5 lakhs for transporting the ganja, and he received Rs.30,00O in advance. The vehicle was escorted by an unknown person until Karimnagar, after which accused Nos.3 and 4 proceeded to Nirmal, where they met another unknown person driving a car with the number MH-48A-7382. They were instructed to wait at Kinwat, where they were eventually caught by the police at 8:00 am.

3. Heard Sri R. Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of tJle petitioners as well as Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners were arrested solely based on confession of accused No.3, which has no validity in law and that a review of the FIR and remand case diary reveals no mention of the petitioners, and no specific overt acts are attributed to them. Furthermore, the statements of 7 3 SKS,J Ctl.P.No.15922 of 2024 accused No.3 are contradictory, and there is no evidence linking thL' petitioners to the contraband beyond the confession ol accused No.3. He further submitted that the petitioners were not present when the contraband was seized, and no contraband was recovered from them. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additiona,l public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the petitioners are drug peddlers. He further submitted that. the investigation is in progress and if the petitioners are released <>n bail, at this stage, they may tamper with the evidence and may threaten the witnesses. 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 avzrilable on record, it is noted that the contention of the petitioners that the case is false, fictitious, and fabricated, the case was registered without following the 4 SKS,J Crl-P.No-15922 ot 2024 due procedure. However, the Additional Public Prosecutor opposes bail citing commercial quantity approximately

864.27 kg of ganja. At this stage, it is pertinent to note Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under: "37. Offences to be cognizable and non- bailable. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 ot l97al,--(al every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (bl no person accused of an offence punishable for 1[offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27 A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shatl be released on bail or on his own bond unless-- (i) the Ftblic Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (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 specilted in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 79741 or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail." i 5 sr(s,J Ctl-P-,f,o.lS922 of 2024

7. In vieu, 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 v"'hile on bail. Given the serious allegations against the petitioner, this Court is not satished that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are met. Therefore, the criminal petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. Act:or<lingly, this Criminat petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed I i To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate (PCR) at Adilabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Talamadugu Police Station, Adilabad District. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to SRI R SUSHANTH REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copres CHR Pcsd/gh HIGH COURT DATED:08101t2025 ORDER CRLP.No.15922 ot 2024 ,{HE SIA r€ Ll' .) I I 21 ilAn 2025 (,) t 0F Sr,ql'-'u r! DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION d( .rV\.J