The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana ...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 petitioner/ AccuSed No.'l on bail in Crime No.483 of 2024 of P.S. Afzalgunj presently lying in Central Prision, Chanchalguda. Hyderabad to the satisfaction of the ll Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. at Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. Rana Kamal san, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Syed Yasan, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.16242 of 2O24 ORDER: Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.483 of 2024 of Afzalgunj Police Station, Hyderabad, on bail, the present Criminal Petition is filed. l

2. The brief facts of the case are that ort 29 .1O.2O24, a complaint was received from N. Jagadeesh, Sub-Inspector of Police at Afzalgunj Police Station stating that earlier that day, he received credible information that two individuals were selling MDMA at CBS Near TGSRTC Cargo between 2O:OO and 2O:30 hours. Jagadeesh and his staff rushed to the spot, apprehended the individuals, and seized 106 grams of MDMA. A case was registered under the NDPS Act 1985, and the accused were charged with possession and sale of MDMA.

3. Heard Sri P. Rana Kamal San, learned counsel appearing on behalf the petitioner as well as Sri Syed Yasan Manoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of t}le respondent. 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.l6242 of 2024

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case with an ulterior motive to help the real culprits escape. As a private employee and sole breadwinner, the family of the petitioner, including his elderly parents, relies on him for support. If he is not released on bail, his family will suffer greatly. He further submitted that the allegations in the FIR arrd complaint are baseiess and that the story of the prosecution is a hoax. There are no specific allegations against the petitioner, and his name is not mentioned in the FIR or statement of the victim. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that 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, she may tamper with the evidence and may threaten the witnesses and he further submitted that the petitioner was involved in other three cases. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 3 SKS,J ctl.P.No,16242 of 2024

6. This Court, considering submissions made by both the learned counsel and reviewing the record, it is noted that the contention of the petitioner that the case is false, fictitious, and fabricated, the case was registered without following the due procedure and there is a delay in collecting the samples. However, the Additional Public Prosecutor opposes bail citing commercial quantity approximately lO6 grams of MDMA and further the petitioner is involved in other three cases. At this stage, it is pertinent to note Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under: I I "37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 12 of 197a), @l every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for 1[offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantityl shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-- (i) the Public opportunity to release, and Prosecutor oppose the has been application given atl for suclr (ii) where the ftbtc Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not I I , 4 SIIS,J Crl,P.No.16242 of 2024 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 reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. Given the serious allegations and pending cases against the petitioner, this Court is not satisfied 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. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.MOHD.ISMAIL ASSISTANT'REGTSTRAR SECTION OFFIGER \ To,

1. The ll Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at-Hyderabad' i. ih; sirti;" House ofticei Folice Station' Afzalgunj' Hvderabad' 3. Two CCs to the puulic pioseiuio'' fign Court for the State of Telangana at +. Oil" ct to'Sri P. Rana Kamal San, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies RBt(plP HyderabadlOUTl HIGH COURT DATED:0610212025 ORDER CRLP.No.16242 of 2024 'r 6E SrAT-c B' 21 ilAB 2025 C, I Or I I I DISMISSING THE CRL.P. \)^x U ?,D