The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA I ! CRIMINAL PETITION No. L623t of 2O2S DATE: 22.12.2o125 BETWE}EN: Lokesh Bareth . . . . . petitioner/ accused And The Stat:e of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. . . . . . Respondent/ complainant f.TiltlSlil a This Criminal Petition is fited praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.l in crime No.763 of 2025 before the Keesara police station, 2 sKs,J Crl.P.IIo. 1623L of 2ol25 i1 Rachakonda Commissionerate, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 17(c) and lS(b) of NDPS Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on lO.lO.2O25, the Sub-lnspector of Police, Keesara Police Station, while conducting vehicle checks at ORR, Kundanpally, apprehended the accused, who allegedly attempted to flee on seeirlg the police and disclosed that he was carrying opium and poppy straw. In the presence of panch witnesses, a confessional- cum-seizure panchanama was conducted, and 7 kg ll2 grams of opium,2 kg24 grams of poppy straw, and a mobile phone were allegedly seized from the po.lse_l:lon of the -" accused. Thereafter, the accused and the seized property were 'produced before the Station House Officer, and Crime No. 763 of 2025 was registered at Keesara Police Station for the offences under Sections 17(c) and 18(b) of the NDPS Act.

3. Heard Sri Lalith Jogi, learned counsel appearing on a behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State. I i I i 3 sKs,J Crl.P.Itto. 1623 1 of 2O25

4. I.earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the mandatory procedure under the NDPS Act was not followed, inasmuch as no samples were drawn from the seized contral>and in accordance with Standing Order No.1 of 1989 and Se:tions 42 and 50 of the Act. He further submitted that such nrrn-compliance vitiated the prosecution case, as held by the Honble Supreme Court and this Court, and that an adverse inference was liable to be drawn against the prosecution. 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 petitionr:r stating that the petitioner is a drug peddler. He further rsubmitted 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. a

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, fictitious, and fabricated, the case was registered 5a t ( 4 sKsl,J Crl.P.No.16231 of 2O25 a) without following the due procedure. However, the Additional Public Prosecutor opposes bail citing commercial quantity weighing 7 kg Il2 grams of opiu n, 2 kg 2a grams of poppy straw. Though the petitioner contended that there was non- compliance with Standing Order No.l of 1989 regarding sampling, such alleged procedural lapses cannot be conclusively examined at the stage of bail. Whether samples were drawn properly, whether the procedure was substantially complied with, and the effect of any deviation are matters that require appreciation of evidence during trial. At the stage of bail, especially in cases involving commercial quantiqr, such contentions by themselves do not create reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty, as required under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

7. Further, the contention of the petitioner that violation of Sections 42 and,SO of the NDPS Act cannot be consiflered at this stage, as the record prima facie indicates that tl e search a and seizure were conducted in a public place during vehicle checking, attracting Section 43 rather than Section 42, and Section 5O is not applicable to search of bags carried by the accused. In the absence of clear and patent violation of ! I I \ 5 sKs,J Crl.P.IIo. 16231 of 2O25 *and6rr-ory provisions, the statutory embargo under Section 37 conl.inues to operate. Further, At this stage, it is pertinent to note Section 37 ctf 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, 1973 (2 of 19741,--(al every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for l[offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27 A aad 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 satisfied 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 19741or Erny other law for the time being in force on granting of bail."

8. [n view thereof, Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that offences involving commercial quantities be non-bailable, I i i t I a 6 sKs,J Crl.P.!Io.16281 of 2O25 requiring reasonable 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 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. g. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed L ! i /,TRUE COPY/ . I SECTION OFFICER I To,

1. The lll Additional Junior civil Judge -cum- lll Additional Judicial Magistrate r' .i'Fii!t'cliil,, meocnat uatxaigiri-at Kushaigud'

2. The station House otficer, Keesara Police StatiOn, Rachakonda' Medchal Malkajgiri District. a

3. One CC to Sri. Lalith JogiAdvocate [OPUC] r' 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the State of Telangana' Hvio.Go loul-

5. Two CD CoPies. -\ KS PSK/PSL HIGH COURT u ATED i2211212025 ORDER CRLP.No.16231 ot 2025 , f I i'i! S Ia Cs. t C) 2 X Jr}l 2026 * * I I I t DISMISS;ING THE CR|M|NAL pETtTtON ) 21