1. Bail petition under BNSS for NDPS Act offences — commercial quantity MDMA seizure from co-accused. (Para 1 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 401
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, J.
Ganga Ram - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Criminal Petition No.14386 of 2026
Decided On : 21-09-2026
Important Points
Procedural lapses in furnishing written grounds of arrest do not automatically entitle an accused to bail unless demonstrable prejudice is shown, especially when the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted due to the involvement of commercial quantities of contraband.
Subject
Criminal Law - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act
Act Referred
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA : S.480, S.483
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT : S.22(c), S.27, S.29, S.37, S.67, S.8(c)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.22(1)
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT : S.22(c), S.27, S.29, S.37, S.67, S.8(c)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.22(1)
Headnote
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 480 and 483; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c) r/w 22(C), 27, 29 and 37; Constitution of India - Articles 21 and 22(1) - Bail application - Non-furnishing of written grounds of arrest - Whether it entitles the accused to bail - Absence of written grounds of arrest does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal or entitle the accused to bail unless demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend is shown (Paras 13, 14 and 15).
(B) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 37 - Bail - Where material on record indicates the accused is a supplier and peddler of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances, the rigor of Section 37 is attracted, outweighing procedural lapses in the absence of demonstrable prejudice (Para 17).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, arrayed as accused No. 2, was alleged to be the supplier and peddler who provided MDMA to accused No. 1. While the contraband was seized from the possession of accused No. 1, the petitioner was arrested based on a confessional statement. The petitioner sought bail on the grounds that written grounds of arrest were not furnished in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, and cited family hardships involving his wife and newborn child.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had not raised the issue of non-furnishing of grounds of arrest in previous bail applications before the District Court and failed to produce any material to show that such a lapse demonstrably prejudiced his defense. The court further noted that the material on record attributed specific overt acts to the petitioner as the supplier of commercial quantities of MDMA.
Issues: Whether the failure to provide written grounds of arrest constitutes a violation of constitutional mandates sufficient to grant bail, and whether the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: Procedural lapses in furnishing grounds of arrest, absent demonstrable prejudice, are curable defects and do not automatically warrant release on bail. In cases involving the supply of commercial quantities of contraband, the gravity of the offense and the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act prevail over such procedural irregularities (Paras 13, 14 and 17).
Result: Criminal Petition is dismissed.
(B) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 37 - Bail - Where material on record indicates the accused is a supplier and peddler of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances, the rigor of Section 37 is attracted, outweighing procedural lapses in the absence of demonstrable prejudice (Para 17).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, arrayed as accused No. 2, was alleged to be the supplier and peddler who provided MDMA to accused No. 1. While the contraband was seized from the possession of accused No. 1, the petitioner was arrested based on a confessional statement. The petitioner sought bail on the grounds that written grounds of arrest were not furnished in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, and cited family hardships involving his wife and newborn child.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had not raised the issue of non-furnishing of grounds of arrest in previous bail applications before the District Court and failed to produce any material to show that such a lapse demonstrably prejudiced his defense. The court further noted that the material on record attributed specific overt acts to the petitioner as the supplier of commercial quantities of MDMA.
Issues: Whether the failure to provide written grounds of arrest constitutes a violation of constitutional mandates sufficient to grant bail, and whether the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: Procedural lapses in furnishing grounds of arrest, absent demonstrable prejudice, are curable defects and do not automatically warrant release on bail. In cases involving the supply of commercial quantities of contraband, the gravity of the offense and the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act prevail over such procedural irregularities (Paras 13, 14 and 17).
Result: Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
-
practice and procedure
- bail
- evidence
- arrest and remand
-
appeals and revision
-
criminal petition
- petition under bnss sections 480 and 483 (Para 1)
-
criminal petition
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued no recovery, implication on co-accused confession, and illegal arrest. State opposed citing bar under Section 37. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Petitioner was supplier/peddler with specific overt acts; arrest not illegal absent demonstrable prejudice from delay in furnishing grounds. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 )
4. Non-compliance with Article 22(1) in furnishing written grounds of arrest does not vitiate arrest if no prejudice is shown. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
5. Criminal petition dismissed as no merit; Section 37 bar applied. (Para 18 , 19 )
6. Does non-furnishing of written grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) automatically entitle an accused to bail?
No, unless demonstrable prejudice or denial of fair opportunity to defend is shown; substantial compliance suffices. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
7. Is a confession of a co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act sufficient to implicate another person?
The court found specific overt acts attributed to the petitioner beyond the confession, making the co-accused's statement not the sole basis. (Para 11 , 12 , 17 )
8. When is the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act attracted for grant of bail?
The bar is attracted when the accused is alleged to be a supplier/peddler in a commercial quantity case with specific overt acts. (Para 9 , 17 )
ORDER :
B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, J.
1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.2 in connection with Crime No.613 of 2026 of P.S. Vanasthalipuram, Malkajgiri Commissionerate. The offence alleged against the petitioner-A2 is punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 22(C), 27 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).
2. Heard Sri S.Chandrashekhar Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner-A2 and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent - State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner-A2, he has been implicated in the crime based on the confession of co-accused-A1, there is no specific overt act or allegation against the petitioner-A2. Total contraband is seized from the possession of A1 which is evident from the remand report dated 04.04.2026 and seizure panchanama dated 03.04.2026. Police has illegally detained the petitioner-A2 and took his signatures forcibly on self-confessional statements before the police which were written by the respondent. Confession statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act has no evidentiary value. Respondent-Police has not informed the grounds of arrest to the petitioner-A2, which are to be in writing that too in the language understood by the petitioner- A2. Police has violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Petitioner-A2 is in judicial custody since 17.04.2026 almost 140 days is completed. Wife of the petitioner-A2 was pregnant during his remand and she gave birth to a baby, there is no one to take care of her and the baby, due to the frustration she attempted suicide and jumped into a well. Prolonged pre-trial incarceration of the petitioner-A2 would cause irreversible prejudice to his wife and baby. Counsel in support of his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another , 2025 INSC 162 (2) Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another , 2025 INSC 1288 (3) M.Eshwar Vs. The State of Telangana ,
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the role played by the petitioner-A2 is depicted in the remand case diary and the petitioner-A2 has not raised about furnishing of grounds of arrest in his earlier bail petition, he is estopped from raising so and furthermore petitioner-A2 has not shown any prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend the case to render the arrest illegal and relied on the decision in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan etc., , 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 801.
5. J.Gautham, S.I. of Police has lodged a report before P.S. Vanasthalipuram on 03.04.2026 stating that he received credible information regarding one person transporting MDMA in a bag and the same will be delivered to other person near Dear Park, Auto Nagar, Vanasthalipuram. From A1-Anopa Ram, the contraband seized is 97.18 grams of MDMA.
6. A1-Anopa Ram was arrested on 03.04.2026 at 2045 hours and was produced before the concerned Magistrate on 04.04.2026. It is stated in the remand case diary of A1 that A2-Raghunath Ram (petitioner herein) is absconding (supplier cum peddler) and A3-Abdhul Rahman @ Ali is also absconding (receiver).
7. Petitioner-A2 was arrested on 15.04.2026 at 1100 hours in Rajasthan State and he was brought to the concerned Court on transit warrant on 17.04.2026 and was produced before the concerned Magistrate, since then he is in judicial remand. It is mentioned in the remand case diary of the petitioner-A2 that A3-A
