The court emphasized that under the NDPS Act, bail for offenses involving commercial quantities requires strict compliance with statutory provisions and cannot be granted without reasonable grounds indicating the accused's non-guilt.

ORDER

This application is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner/accused No.3, seeking bail in Crime No.01 of 2025 of Cyberabad Narcotic Police Station, TGANB, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8 (c), 22 (B), 22 (c), 27-A and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’).

2. The case of prosecution in brief is that a drug racket operated by Nigerian nationals from AY Residency, Upperpally, Hyderabad. Acting on credible information, officials conducted surveillance and apprehended three accused, who confessed to selling cocaine and MDMA under the direction of Divine Ebuka Suzee, orchestrating operations from Nigeria. The investigation revealed illicit financial transactions routed through bank accounts procured by accused No.3. Authorities seized 52.29 grams of MDMA and 16.45 grams of cocaine. Basing on the same, Crime No.01 of

2025 was registered.

3. Heard Mr.Syed Hassain, learned counsel representing Mr.Mohammed Aliuddin Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint or in the remand case dairy, the alleged contraband was seized from the possession of accused Nos.1 and 2 only. The petitioner/accused No.3 is doing foreign exchange business. He further submitted that the Police without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under the provisions of the NDPS Act, seized the contraband. However, the petitioner was produced before the concerned Magistrate on 03.04.2025 and the learned Magistrate remanded the petitioner into judicial custody on 04.04.2025 and since then he was in judicial custody and the material part of the investigation is completed. He further submitted that the petitioner shall abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court, and he was ready to cooperative with the investigation. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner/accused No.3 has committed grave offence under the provisions of NDPS Act and 52.29 grams of MDMA and 16.45 grams of cocaine was seized and the investigation is under progress and the petitioner was arrested on 04.04.2025. Hence, at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the police seized the contraband i.e., 52.29 grams of MDMA and 16.45 grams of cocaine, which is of commercial quantity. In the remand case dairy the investigating officer specifically mentioned the role of the petitioner/accused No.3. The said contraband seized from the possession of petitioner Nos.1 to 3. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor the investigation is under progress.

7. 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.

--(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 b