The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 480, 483 of BNSS, 2023 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.0'l on Regular Bail in Crime No.25912025 of SHO, Police Station, Domalguda, registered under Sections 8c, r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) BNS, in the interest of justice., This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri MUDDALA MAHESH, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri D.Arun Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent; The Court made the following: ORDER IN THT' HIGH COURT FOR TIIE STATE OE TELAITGANA AT TTYDERABAI) TIIE HOI{OURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15826 of 2ol25 DATE: L7.12.2O25 BETWEF}N: Meka Orn Sai Raghavendra Rao .....petitioner/accused And The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prost:cutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyde:'abad. .....Respondent/complainant ORDER This Criminal Petition is frled praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No. 1 in Crinre No.259 of 2025 before the Domalaguda police 2 SKS.J CrI.P.lfo. lS8 26 of ZOiS Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offence, punishable under Secrions g(C), 22(cl,2O(bXiiXB) of NDpS Act. 2' The brief facts of the case are that a complaint dated L9'08'2025 rodged by the sub-Inspector of police, Domarguda P'S'' stating that during patrolling at around I7:3o hours, a suspicious brack Nissan Magnite car bearing No. TG og G 5723 was intercepted near Gate-l, NTR stadiurn. Two individuals, Meka om Sai Raghavendra Rao and Nikh,, were apprehended wh,e alregedry attempting to flee. Upon search, the police reportedly seized r2.sz gr€uns of MDMA, 3os grams of ganja, three mobile phones, a ,car, a bag, and cash of Rs.1080/-. 3' Heard M' Mahesh, rearned counser appearing on behalf of the petitioner as we, as sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent _ State. 4' Learned counser for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner r,r'as innocent and had been f,alsery impricated in the case on the basis of fabricated ailegations and a porice_created confession and that the petitioner was a Rapido driver earning 3 sKsn, Crl,P.tro.l5a26 of 2()irs a modest livelihood, supporting his aged parents; and his prolonged. incarceration since 20.08.2025 caused severe hardship to his family. He further submitted that the investigal.ion had been completed, material witnesses were examinec., nothing remained for further investigation except filing the charge sheet, and therefore there was no possibility of tampe::ing with evidence. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition.

5. Or. the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for tJ:e petitioner stating that the petitioner is a drug peddler. He further :;ubmitted that the investigation is in progress and if the petitioner is released on bail, at this stage, he 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 revieu'ing the material available on record, it is noted tl-rat the contention of the petitioner that the case is j.alse, fictitious, and fabricated, the case was registered without following the due procedure. However, the Additional Public Prosecutor opposes bail citing commercial quantity 4 sKsrJ Crl.P.No.15826 of 2o25 weighing 12.57 grams of MDMA, 305 grams 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, L973 (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 section24 or section 27A and also for offenc.es involving commercial quantityl shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-- (i) the Public Prosecutor. has been given an opportunit5r to oppose the application for such release, and (iil' rvhere 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. (21 The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (bl of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 ot 19741or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail."

7. [n view thereof, Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that offences involving commercial quantities be non-bailable, 5 sKs,., Crl.P.[o.15826 of 2025 requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accu6ed is not guilty an,l unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. Given thr: serious allegations against the petitioner, this Court is not salisfied that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are nret. Therefore, the criminal petition lacks merit and tlle same is liable to be dismissed.

8. Ac,:ordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/. A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER I i] I To,

1. The X Acldl. Chief Jucticiat Magistrate, Secunderabad 2. The Station House Officer, Domalaguda P S., Hyderabad 3. One CC :o SRl. MUDDALA MAHESH Advocate loPUcl 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PRoS ECUTOR, High Cou rt at Hyderabad (OUT) 5. Two CD,lopies W, _-)--- vSIwPsL g HIGH COIJRT DATED:1'711212025 ,!( HE STA C; o C) ? { JAil 2t2t )- I ."'Plrt c,\\?t+ ORDER CRLP.No.15826 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 9 7h I