IMPORTANT POINT
The court highlighted the stringent conditions for granting bail under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the need for reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

JUDGMENT

CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, J. - Heard Sri T.Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor who is representing the Respondent.

2. Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No.1 in S.C.No.242 of 2022, on the file of the Court of Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under NDPS Act, Kothagudem, on bail, the present Criminal Petition is filed.

3. Making his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has not committed any offence and the allegation that the petitioner was found in possession of 220 Kgs of Ganja is false. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is implicated in a false case and he is in judicial custody since February 2022 and as he is a law abiding citizen and is a student, he may be enlarged on bail.

4. On the other hand, the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that huge quantity of Ganja was seized from the possession of the petitioner and as the contraband seized has far exceeded the commercial quantity, he is not entitled for bail.

5. The facts of the case in brief as could be perceived through the contents of the charge sheet are that, on 22/2/2022, as per the instructions of his superior officers, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Dummugudem, was performing vehicle checking at the outskirts of Chinna Nallaballi Village and at about 2:30 AM, he noticed one car without registration number coming from Bhadrachalam side. Police party tried to stop the car, but the car driver moved forward. Police party chased the car and stopped the car. But the persons present therein did not give proper answers. When the car was checked, police found some parcels. Police party smelled the sealed parcels and confirmed that those parcels contains Ganja. On that, the persons present therein were taken into custody. Mediators were summoned and the statements of those persons were recorded in the presence of the mediators. Police seized 110 packets which contain 220 Kgs 400 gms of Ganja which costs approximately 44, 08, 000/-. One of those persons is the petitioner herein.

6. Thus, as per the version of the prosecution, the petitioner committed the offence punishable under Sec. 8(c) r/w.20(b) of NDPS Act.

7. The legal position is more than well settled that apart from Sec. 439 Cr.P.C., Sec. 37 of the NDPS should also be taken into consideration by the Court while granting bail when the case falls within the ambit of Sec. 37(b) of NDPS Act. Sec. 37 of NDPS Act reads as under:-

"37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)- (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under Sec. 19 or Sec. 24 or Sec. 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity 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-sec. (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail."

8. By the contents of Sec. 37(2) of the NDPS Act, it is clear that the limitations of granting bail specified in Sec. 37(1)(b) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is not in dispute that the contraband involves commercial quantity. Thus, it is incumbent on part of the Court to give an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor. Also, where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court should be satisf