The petitioners are not entitled to bail under NDPS Act due to possession of commercial quantity of narcotics and timely filing of charge sheet.

COMMON ORDER:

Both the criminal petitions are arising out of Crime No.1212 of

2024. Hence, both the criminal petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. These Criminal Petitions are filed under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking bail to the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 6 in Crime No.1212 of 2024 on the file of Patancheru Police Station, Sangareddy, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8 (c) r/w 22(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

3. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 20.12.2024, at about 17:05 hrs, in front of AGI/Hindware Company, near Isnapur Village gate, Patancheru Mandal, petitioners were caught with illegal possession of MDMA weighing about 1000 grams in two plastic covers. Basing on the same, a case was registered in Crime No.1212 of

2024.

4. Heard Mr.Ravuri Sai Sumanth, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused No.3 and 6 and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have not committed alleged offence and basing on the confession statement given by the other accused, they were falsely implicated in the above crime and the contraband was seized from the other accused, hence the provisions of the NDPS Act are not attracted against the petitioners. He vehemently contended that the petitioners were arrested on 20.12.2024 and sine then they are in judicial custody and even after expiry of the statutory period of 180 days, the investigation officer has not filed charge sheet and not filed any application seeking extension of time for conducting investigation as required under Section 36(c) of the NDPS Act and hence the petitioners are entitled for grant of statutory bail. He further submitted that the petitioners are not having any criminal antecedents and they are eking out their livelihood by doing labour work and they are ready to cooperate with the investigation and also ready to abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court.

5.1. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in M.Ravindran v. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence , [S.L.P. (Criminal) No.2333 of 2020]

6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners have committed grave offence under the provisions of NDPS Act and 1000 grams of MDMA was seized from possession of the petitioners and other accused, which is a commercial quantity. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer, after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet on 21.04.2025, even before the expiry of the statutory period of 180 days. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of statutory bail.

7. By way of reply, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that once charge sheet has been filed by the investigation officer, the question of interference with the investigation and influencing the witness by the petitioners does not arise. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to appear before the concerned Court on each and every adjournment and also abide by the conditions which are going to be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for grant of bail.

8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the alleged contraband namely 1000 grams of MDMA is commercial quantity and there are specific allegations against the petitioners to attract the provisions of the NDPS Act. As per the NDPS Act, 0.5 grams of MDMA is small quantity and 10 grams is a commercial quantity, whereas, the contraband seized in the present case is 1000 grams of MDMA, which is more than commercial quantity.

9. During the course of hearing, learned Additional Public Prosecuto