ORDER:

The present Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.321 of 2024 before the Narsampet Police Station, Warangal District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on bail.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 03.08.2024, at around 17:30 hours, the Sub Inspector of Police at Narsampet reported that while conducting vehicle checks at Kamalapur Cross Road, two cars - a Zest and an Ertiga - were stopped, and upon inspection, 128 packets of dry ganja weighing 250.900 kg were seized from the vehicles. The drivers, fled the scene, while petitioner was apprehended. The petitioner disclosed that the ganja was hidden in the cars, leading to arrest and the registration of a case against the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated to harass him. He lamented that a false panchanama was extracted from petitioner, and that he had no knowledge of the transportation of ganja. He averred that the petitioner did not purchase or possess any ganja, and the seized ganja was found in the Zest Car, with which he had no connection. He asserted that the role of petitioner in the purchase of ganja was not mentioned in the panchanama or remand case diary. He further contended that the petitioner did not drive the Zest Car on the alleged date and was not engaged as a driver to transport ganja. Therefore, prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are of serious nature as the matter revolves around seizure of 128 packets of dry ganja weighing 250.900 kgs from the vehicles and that petitioner apprehended at the scene. Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the limited grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case and that he is no way concerned with the alleged offence and that false panchanama was extracted from the petitioner, whereas, it is the specific stand of learned Additional Public Prosecutor that 128 packets of dry ganja weighing 250.900 kgs was seized from the petitioner.

7. At this stage, it is imperative to note that the contraband seized from the petitioner is a commercial quantity. That being so, it is relevant to extract Section

37 of the NDPS Act, which 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 1[offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 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-section (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 for