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 Jella Naresh Kumar,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri D Arun Kumar, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15197 of2O2S DATE: o,4.12.2o.25 BETVTEEN: Rahu. Kumar R @t Vishnu . . . . . petitioner/ accused No.2 And The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High tJourt of Telangana, Hyderabad. . .. .. Respondent/ complainant ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed seeking this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.354 of 2025 before the Chaderghat police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sectic,ns 8(c) read with 22(c),27(A),22(Bl and 29 of NDpS Act. 2 !- \ \l ^'- <*'F sr(s.J Crl.P.No.tSt97 of 2ois ') j I l

2. The brief facts of the case are that on O1.10.2025, the Sub-Inspector of police, Chaderghat, claimed to have received credible information regarding a suspected delivery of MDMA near Bhookarimatha Tempre and, upon conducting a raid with mediators and the Clues Team, allegedly apprehended two persons and seized 5O grams of MDMA along with mobile phones and cash.

3. Heard Sri J. Naresh Kumar, learned counsei appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional public prosecutor sppg,rdng on behaif of the respondent _ State. 4' Learned counsel for the pedtioner submitted that the petitioner had been farsery implicated, as no contraband was recovered from his possession and he had no connection with the alleged. offence and thar the police had illegally detained him for seven days in Bengaluru before showing his arrest and had not complied with mandatory procedures under Section 52-A of the NDpS Act, thereby violating Article 21. Counsel further submitted that the pedtioner was ar innocent, law_abiding citizen with no criminal antecedents, was in judicial custody for 47 days. Therefore, he prayed the I 3 sKs,J Crl.P.!to.l5l97 of 2025 Court l:o grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition.

5. ()n the other hand, learned Additional Rrblic Prosecutor opposeC tl-re submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitiorrer stating t.hat the petitioner is a drug peddler. He further submitted that the investigation is in progress and if the petitioner is released on bail, at this stage, he may tamper with tl.e 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 available on record, it is noted that the contention of the petitioner that the case is false, frctitious, and fabricated, the case was registered withoul. following the due procedure. However, the Additional Public Prosecutor opposes bail citing- commercial quantity weighing 50 grams of MDMA. At this stage, it is pertinent to note Section 37 ofthe 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 of L97al,-(al every ollence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; 4 sKs,J Crt.P.Io- 15197 of2025 a (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for l[offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27 A and also for offences 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, and (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 and 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' 1973 (2 of 19741 or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail'"

7. In view thereof, Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that offences involving commercial quantities be non-bailable' requiring reasonabie grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail' Given the serious allegations against the petitioner, this Court is not satished that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are met. Further, it is also pertinent to note the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Aambale V The -7 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.15l97 of 2025 I State of Chattisgarhl, wherein it is clearly observed that non- compliance of Section 52-A of NDPS Act is not a ground for grant of bail. Therefore, the criminal petition lacks merit and the sarne is liable to be dismissed.

8. ,\ccordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. 'Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed Sd/. P. PONNA KRISHNA S ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 The Vlll Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad The Station House Officer, Chaderghat Police Station, Hyderabad Two CCr; to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.(OUT) One CC to Sri Jella Naresh Kumar, Advocate IOPUCI Two CD Copies TTS/Sa l-xsr I C-i..'l.,o\ Aqpeal No zs,r of 2o t5 HIGH COUIIT DATED:04/121202s ORDER CRLP.No.15'197 of 2025 DISMISSIN(3 THE CRIMINAL PETITION --\-r- a- l\. ---' < -/ "Hf-' it.-; c) O 2 3 lril 2[2$ ta) * .k a