The High Court · 2025

2. Shri P. Sudhakar, lnspector of Police, PS Amberpet, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/Defacto Gom plai nant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings pending on the file in SC.No.NDPS No.104/2023 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Nampally against the Petitioners/Accused No.4 & 6 in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings in SC.No.NDPS No.104/2023 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Nampally pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition, 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 M A Basith, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the ResPondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER i ! : i : i : I I IN THE IITGH COURT FOR THE STATE oF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.16548 of 2025 Date:12.12.2025 Between: Bashapalli Sravan and another AND .Petitioners The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad and another ...Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedirrgs in S.C. NDPS No.104 of 2023 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.4 and 6 for the offences punishat,le under Sections 8(c) read with 22(b) and 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'). 2

2. Heard Sri M.A.Basith, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V.Jithendar Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue raised in this criminal petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.8748 of 2025, dated 15.07.2025 wherein accused No.7 approached this Court seeking quashing of the very same proceedings, and this Court allowed the same. Hence, the petitioners are also entitled to the very same relief.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioners that the issue raised in the present Criminal Petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.8748 of 2025, dated 15.07.2025.

5. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the respective parties and the order passed by this. Court in Crl.P.No.8748 of 2025, dated 15.07.2025, this Criminal Petition is allowed. {fhe proceedings against the petitioners/accused \ Nos.4 and 6 in S.C. NDPS No.104 of 2023 on the file of the 3 Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. T.SRINIVASAREDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER To,

1. The Me,tropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally' Hyderabad 2. The lV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad 3. The station House Officer, Amberpet Police station, Hyderabad 4. Two C()s to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderirbad [OUT]

5. One C(l to Sri M A Basith, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two Ct) Copies ABK /PSLw : Ir+ ir..::-.,' .;-T-.r;l:@r.r:sn - ...:: ,"1.:.r",-W.d. ,i:Y"r t_' 1 HIGH COURT DATED: 1211i,.12025 ORDER CRLP.No.165,48 of 2025 I i o() f' ( r {HE SI,i (' ? I JAN 202[ i_ it.'i , ALLOWING 'THE CRIMINAL PETITTON ^rPRq&Y?..^\a' THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARANflJI ORDER This criminal Petition is fired under section s2g af Bharatiya Nagarik suraksha sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2oz3') seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner in sc NDps No.104 of 2023 on the file of the learned Metropolitan sessions Judge, Nampally, at Hyderabad.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.7 in the sessions case registered for the offences punishable under section g(c) read with 22(b) and 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act').

3. " Heard Mr. Mohammed Amair sohair, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Adciitional public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No. 1-State.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 09.12.2o2Q on credible information, the complainant along with staff surprised premises at Patel Nagar chowrastha, Amberpet, and found in suspicious manner holding a polythene cover. on seeing the police, when perturbed, they were apprehended and on search, found that they are in possession of MDMA drug and Ecstasy pills and on enquiry, revealed their identities z Arr&/ Crl.P.No.8748 of 2025 and they have informed that they purchased the contraband from accused l\o.1 and that they sold small quantities of contraband to several porsons including the petitioner/accused No.7. Upon recording of the statement of admission in Seizure panchanama, complaint was lodged. \A'hereupon, Crime No.499 of 2022 was registered alleging that the accused committed an offence under Section 8(c) read with 22(b) and 27 o'' the NDPS Act and consequently, the Sessions Case was numberec vlde SC NDPS No.104 of 2023 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the offence and even in the investigatron, except for the statement of accused No.2 that he used to sell small quantities of contraband to needy customers including the petitioner, no other material or documents either evidencing purchase or consunrption of the contraband. The petitioner/accused No.7 did not undergon3 medicat tests to detect the trace of drug. Thus, there is absolutely,no evidence to implicate the petitioner, aS such, continuance of procer:dings against him would be unjust. Hence, prayed for q uashmetrt of proceedings.

6. Learrned Additional Public Prosecutor tarly submits that except the conlessional statement of the accused No.2 that the I 3 1w&/ Crl.P.No. E74E 0J2025 petitioner/accused No.7 is one among the other customers, no other material has been collected during investigation. That apart, no medical tests conducted upon the petitioner/accused No.11 to make out petitioner consuming the contraband.

8. I have perused the materials on record lt is clear by the record that except the statement of co-accused, there is no other material against the petitioner. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Tofan Singh v. The State of Tamilnadul had held that confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, is inadmissible in evidence. That being the position, in the absence of any material evidence, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner would be unjustified and abuse of process of Law.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.7 in SC NDPS No.104 of 2023 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 15.07.2025 L 2021(4) scc 1