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 J0lla Naresh Kumar Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri D.Arun Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TE LANGANA AT ITYDERABAI) THE HONOURABLE SMT. WSTICE K. SIJ IANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.l62O6 of 2Q1 5 DATEz 22.12-2o25 BETtrIEEN: Yakula Akshav petitioner/ a : :used No.2 And The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Sl-ate of Telangana, at Hyderabacl. ....Respondent/ cc rrplainant ORI'ER This Criminal Petition is frled prayrng this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed zr accused No.2 in Crirnc No.328 of 2025 before the Kusumar chi Police 2 SKS'J Crl.P.[o.16205 of 2()25 Station, Khammam District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(Cl, 278 of NDPS Act, 1985.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on O3.l 1.2025' the defacto complainant, Sub-Inspector of Police, P'S' Kusumanchi, while conducting a raid at Naikangudem service road, allegedly found accused Nos. 1 to 4 in possession of 1.46 kg of hashish oil. It was alleged that the contraband was purchased from one Shiva @ Guru at the outskirts of Maredumilli for Rs.25,OOO/-' The said contraband was seized under a panchanama in the presence of mediators, and the accused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

3. Heard Jella Naresh Kumar, Iearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D' Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the -} petitioner was innocent and had been falsely implicated, as no contraband was recovered from his possession and his ,r . i..:,r.;.:-,t:{ir^i.t,,.,, 3 SKS,J Crl.P.I ).16206 of2025 narne was included only on the basis of he alleged confession of co-accused, which had no evider tiary value and that the petitioner was a B.Tech second-.., ar student with no criminal antecedents, had merely acco r panied the co-accused, and had no knowledge or contr( I over the alleged contraband. The learned counsel furtht I submitted that the investigation was substantially complelr C, recovery was eflected only from accused No. 1, anc continued detention of the petitioner for about 50 days ri, ruld cause irreparable harm to his education and future. Tt erefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner l,y allowing this Criminal Petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additior al Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by L re lcarned counsel for the petitioner stating that the pet ! toner is a drug peddler. He further submitted ttrat the inver tigation is in progress and if the petitioner is released on lr Lil, at this stage, he ntay tarnper with the evidence and mir . threaten the witnesses. Hence, he prayed the Court to 11 smiss the criminal petition. 4 sKs,J Crl.P.[o.16206 of2025

6. In the light of the submissions made by the leamed counsel appearing for both parties and upon a careful perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the quantit5r allegedly involved in the present case is 1.46 kg of hashish oil, which squarely falls within the category of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. It was the specihc contention of the leamed counsel for the petitioner that, except for the alleged confession statement of the co- accused, there is no other material implicating the petitioner and that no contraband was recovered from his possession.

7. It was further cootended that, in view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil l[adul, a confession made to a police officer under the NDPS Act is inadmissible in evidence and, therefore, the petitioner could not have been arrayed as an accused solely on the basis of such confession. However, in the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh @ KasiP, wherein the Apex Court held that the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act has to be '(zozr) a scc r 'lzozoy rz scc tzz j 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No. 62()6 of2()25 strictly complied with at the stage of consideratio r: of bail in cases involving commercial quantity and that . he Court must be satished that there are reasonable g.-, unds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the allel; d offence artd that he is not likely to commit any offence whi e on bail. The Apex Court further obserrred that issues ' lating to admissibililv of confession under the NDPS Ar:r , as laid down in Tofan Singh (supra), can be examir L, d at an appropriate stage, and the same by itself rv ruld not automatically entitle an accused to bail.

8. Though it was argued that the petitioner i,, rs not in conscious possession of the contraband and that t-rere was no material to establish culpable mental state agt nst him, this Court finds that such a determinatiou requires appreciation of evidence, which is a matter for tria . Further, though the learned counsel contended that the pct tioner is a student and is required to attend examinations, t le cause title of the petitioner describes him as unemplred, and therefore, thr: said contention does not inspire con ll lence so as to grant bail on t1.at ground. I \ ( ( 6 SKS,J Crl.P.xo.16206 of2025

9. In view of the commercial quantity involved and the statutory bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court is not satisfied that the twin conditions prescribed therein are fulhlled in the present case. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/. U.SUDHA ASSIS TANTREGISTRA /TTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Judicial First Class Magistrate (Spl Mobile) at Khamiram' i. rn" Strtion House Officer, kusumanchi Police Station' Khammam' 5. r*o bc. to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the state of Telangana' at a O'ne CC to Sri G.-satish Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies Hvderabad. IOUTI a Svs/PSL JK9 HIGH COURT DATED:2211212025 ORDER CRLP.No.16206 ot 2025 () ( * iHE SIA I JAN 2026 v !;: ( spn a DISMISSING THE CRLP lzCr f\J tIfze