The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 480 and 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. 1 on Regular Bail in Crime No. 332 of 2025 on the file of Sangareddy Town Police Station Sangareddy. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. Vishnuvardhana Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER .I I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF. TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.16314 of 2o25 DATD:24.t2.2O25 BETWEEN: Goundla Srinir.as Goud . . .. petitioner/accused No. I And The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. ... .. Respondent/ cornplainant ORDER I ! i This Criminal PeLition is hied praylng this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.332 of 2025 before the Sangareddy Town Police Station, Sangareddy District, registered for the offence 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.16314 of2025 punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 21(c), 22(cl, 27(AJ, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.O8.2O25, based on credible information, the police- conducted a raid at a house in Ganesh Nagar, Sangareddy Town, and allegedly found illegal manufacturing of Alprazolam. During the search, two persons, including the petitioner (A-1), were found in the i premises along with chemicals, equipment, and substances suspected to be Alprazolam. The Drugs Inspector identified the raw materials as those used for manulacturing Alpraz.olam, and based on the seizure and an alleged confessional statement, Crime No.332 of 2025 was registered.

3. Heard Sri P. Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Pubiic Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. Lcarned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated and was neither in conscious I possession nor control of the alleged premises or seized materials and that the confessional statement recorded by thc 3 sKs,J Crl.P.No.16314 of 2O2S police was inadmissible in law and that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act u/ere not complied with. He lurther submitted t hat there \{ras no conclusive FSL report to establish that the seized substance was Alprazolam, that custodial interrogation was no longer required, and that continued <lctcntion amounted to pre-trial punishment. Therefore, hc prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by allorving this Criminal Petilion.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner slating 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, 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 reviewing the material available on record, it is noted that the contention of the petitioner that the case is false, hctitious, and fabricated, the case was registered without follou,ing the due procedure. However, the Additional Public Prosecutor opposes bail citing commercial quantity I 4 SKS,J Crl.P.l{o.16314 of 2025 weighing 270 grams of Alprazolam. At this stage, it is pertinent to note Section 37 qf the NDPS Act, which reads as under: "37- Oflences to be cognizable and non bailable. -- (1) Notlvithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 12 ot 197a1,--(al every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizablc; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for l[offences under section l9 or section 24 or section 27 A anl.cl also for offences involving commercial quantityl shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless (i) the Public opportunity to lelease, and Prosecutor oppose the has been given an application for such (ii) wherc 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 likety 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 ot 1974) 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, 5 SKS,J Crl-P.I{o.16314 of 2O2S requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. Given the serious allegations :rgainst thc petitioner, this Court is not satisfied that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are met. Thereforc, thc criminal petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingl_v, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if an5, pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/-P. PONNA KRISHNA SISTANT REGISTRAR N OFFICER '1 . The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sanga Reddy 2. The Station House Officer, Sangareddy Town Police Station, Sangareddy 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri P. Vishnuvardhana Reddy, Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CD Copies \ To, HIGH COURT SKS, J DATED: 2411212025 ( * o C.' ). r1E S 1 3 [[B 2026 z * ORDER CRLP.No.16314 ot 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION A\5t Jxs \'lae