The High Court · 2025

Thrs Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Reddamaina Thirupathi, Advocate for the Petitroner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent State. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAI PE.TITION No.16419 of 20.24 ORDER: The present Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to r:nlarge the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.3 in F'lR. No.483 of 2024 before the Afz.a-lgunj Police Station, Hvderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 22(cl of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short 'I.{DPSJ on bail.

2. The brief facts of thc case are that on 29.10.2024 at approximatclr, 8:OO pm, the Sub-lnspector of Police from Afzalgunj Dolice Statron, Hyderabad, along with his team, conducted a raid at CBS, near TGSRTC Cargo, Hyderabad, based on crediblc information. During the raid, they apprehended tu,o individuals, A1 and A2, who were found to be in susprcious cir<:umstances. Upon searching A1 and A2, the police serzed a total of IO6 grams of MDMA. a balned narcotic substancc, with .52 grams found on Al and 54 grams on A2. The g;olice then recorded the :onfessional t 2 SKS,J crl.P.No. t@19 0f 202+ statements of A1 and A2, which revealed the involvement of additional individuals, including A3/petitioner and other accused, in the narcotics trade. The confessional statements led to the registration of a criminal 64ss again5t thg petitioner under the offences as mentioned above. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal petition is filed. 3 Heard Sri R.Thirupathi, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Syed yasar Mamoon, leamed Additional public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent _ Stare.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the arrest of as the petitioner was solely based on the confession statements o[ Accused Nos. I and 2, which hold no evidentiary varue and that the petitioner had no contraband in his possession and was not involved in the commission of the crime. He further submitted that petitioner, a native of Rajasthan, was arrested by the Chandanagar police on October 3t, 2024, in connection with FIR No.ll2l/2024 and has been confined to tJle Central prison, Cherlapa[y, Medchal District, since then. While in prison, the petitioner was prod uced before the II Additional Chief Judicial t 3 SKS,J Crl-P. ',1c,.16419 of 2O2+ Magistrate, Hyderabad, on a production transit warrant m FIR No' 48311'024, whicrr relarion to alleged invrtlvement based on t1.e confession stltements of Accused No. I and 2, despite no contraband treing seized from tJle petitloner. He contended that the police are implicating the petitioner in similar offences based on confessional statements, but the petitioner has no connection to the alleged offence' He asserted that the bail application of petitioner uide Crl'M'P'No'5637 12024 was dismissed on 18-12'2024, solety due to the commercial quantity of MDMA seized from Accused No' 1 and 2' and not from ttre ltetitioner- He averred that the invt:stigation is complete, rvith all witness statements recorded, and that the petitioner ; s willing to furnish sufllcient sureties and abide by any conditions for grant of bail Therefore, h'r prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing lhis criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, Iearned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel fo- the petitroner stating that 106 grans of MDMA was seizecl from A1 and A2 and that the same (:onstitutes a I l l I I I 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.l&19 of 2024 commercial quantity. He contended that t].e confessiona-l statements of Al and 42 implicated A3 to A6, including the petitioner, and that A4 to A6 are absconding artd that the investigation is ongoing. He averred that releasing the petitioner on bail could lead to further offences, particularly given his status as a native of Rajasthan State. Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the materiar praced on record, it is noted that the limited grievance of learned counsel for the p€titioner that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case, solely basing upon the confessional statement of Al and A2, and that he is no way concerned with the alleged offence, whereas, it is the specific stand of learned Additional public Prosecutor that lo6 grams of MDMA was seized from Al and, A2 and that baserl on their confession, the pefitioner was implicated in the case for his alleged involvement in trade of drugs. f / // / 5 SKS,J Crl P No 16419 of202+

7. At ttris stage, it is imperative to n()te that the contraband seized by the Police in possession ,:f A I and A2 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 rron- bailable. -- (f ) Notwithstanding anything r:ontained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of l97al,--(al every off<:nce punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offr'nce punishable for l[offences under section I ] or section 24 or section 27A aod also lbr offences involving commercial quantityl shall be released on bail or on hrs 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 rs satished that tLere I 6 SKS,J CrI.P.No.r6419 of 2o2it 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 (2) The limitations on granting of bail specfied in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Cnminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of L9741 or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail." In view thereof, it is clear that Section 37 of the NDPS 8. Act mandates that offences involving commercid quantities be non-bailable, requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guitry and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. Further, in this context' the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Unlon of India Vs. Mohd Nawaz Khan I assumes signifrcance' whereunder, it was held that the concept of possession is a broad one and that the same cannot be limited to physical ' 1zozt1 to scc too II ,/ 7 SKS.J CrI P llo. lGl l9 ot 2O2+ possession alone. The Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that wher contraband is recovered from somr: individuals and ottrers are implicated in the crime, all factors, including the conneclions between the individuals. and the surrounding circumstances, must be examined to determine their role rn the offence. It was further observed that these aspects can only be decided during the course of trial, and not at the stage of granting bail. That being sc,, it is made clear that this Court cannot grant bail solely or the ground that no contraband was recovered from the p,>ssession of petitioner, when others have been found in p,tssession of commercial quanlities of narcoLics. The decision rendered in the case of Tofaa Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu2 was also cited in support of this proposition. Given the sr:rious sct of allegations leveled against the petitioner with rr:gard to his involvement in trade of drugs, this Court is not s.arisfied that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are met. That apart, though learned counsel for'petitioner relied on the judgment rendered by this Court paqsed in Crl.P.No.3838 of 2024, it is ,-roted that the s€une does not come to the aid o[ petitioner as in the case thereof, the accused was in jail for '1zo2r1a scc r 4-, 8 SKSJ Crl.P.No.l&19 of 2O2+ nearly five months and considering t)le same, bail was granted to him, whereas, in the case on hand, the petitioner is in jail from the last 172 months only. Therefore, the criminal petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. g. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL TANT REGISTRAR SI SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lAddl. Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. 2. The ll Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Hyderabad 3. The Station House Officer, Gunj Police Station, Hyderabad District. 4. One CC to Sri. Reddamaina Thirupathi, Advocate IOPUCI. 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana 6. Two CD Copies. YIR/ch Yt I I I I I : I I I I I I I I I ; l i HIGH COURT DATED:2810112025 ORDER CRLP.No.16419 of 2024 I l otr IHE srA 14: ( 6( a l o o 1 I nin 2625 t Or SPATc {l ) DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION q..f,"A Y+j('r