The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 480 & 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.2 on bail in connection with Crime No. 16912025 of Mugpal Police Station, Nizamabad District, registered under offences under Sections B(c), 22(C), 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P SRINATH, Advocate for the Petitioner and D. ARUN KUTUAR Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Sole Respondent The Court made the following: ORDER ,: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT ITYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE S[IT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PE"flTION No. L66a2 of 2ol25 DATE: gl.t2.2ot2$ EEff'EDtrE Peddolla lSagar .....petitioner/ accused No.2 And The State of Telangana, Rep. by Pr:blic Prosecutor, High Cour-t for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. ... ..Respondent/ complainant ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.l69 of 2025 before the Mugpal Police Station, f 2 sKs,J Crl.P.I{o. 1.66 A2 of 2o25 Nizamabad District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8{C) read with 22(c) and 29 of NDPS Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on' 27 -10.2025, acting on prior information, the police apprehended accused Nos.1 and 2 white they were allegedly transporting Alprazolam for mixing it in toddy, and seized 4o8 grams from Accused No.l and L82 grams from the petitioner. It was alleged that both accused had procured the contraband from Accused No.3 ald were apprehended while proceeding towards Thanakurdh village. The petitioner \f,/as arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.LO.2O25 and had been in custody since then.

3. Heard Sri P. Srinath, learned 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. karned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated ancl that the alleged seizure and confession were doubtful, as no independent corroborative evidence such as photogra.phs, CCTV footage, or 3 sKs,J Crl.P.No.166a2 of 2O2S call records connected the petitioner with the aleged offence and theLt mandatory provisions of section so of the NDpS Act were nc,t complied with, that no recovery of sale proceeds was made, ,a.nd that the role of the petitioner was not clearly established. He contended t]:at the petitioner was a permanent resident of Nizamabad with no criminal antecedents, that Accused No.3 had already been enlarged on bail- T'herefore, he prayed the court to grant bail to the petitionr:r 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 srating 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 reviewing the material available on record, it is noted that the contention of .the petitioner that the case is fzLlse, fictitious, and f,abricated, the case was registered without lbllowing the due procedure. However, the Additional 4 sKsr, Crl.P.I{o. 166E2 of 2o25 Public Prosecutor opposes bail citing commercial quantity weighing 182 grams of Alprazolam 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. -- (U Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, lg73 {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 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantityt shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-- (il the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (iil 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 ot bail specilied in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 19741or any other la,-v for the time being in force on granting of bail." 5 aKsn, Crt.P.fo. 166a2 of 2(rrs

7. Irr view thereof, Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that offi:nces involving commercial quantities be non-bailable, requirin.g 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 srrtisfied that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are met. Therefore, the criminal petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. A<:cordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. SdI- K. MADHAVI SISTANT REGIST //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To

1. The ll Adciitional Judicial Magistrate First class at Nizamabad, Nizamabad District

2. The station House officer, Mugpal police station, Mugpal, Nizamabad District 3. One CC tc SRt P SRTNATH Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two ccs to Pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderaba,l [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies VM/PR I HIGH COURT DATED: 3111212025 CRLP.No.16682 ol 2O25 t () lHE S c' 1 I [rE 2uf, t * DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 0_ \)'