Bail may be denied for offenses involving commercial quantities of narcotics, reflecting the severity of charges and ensuring the integrity of ongoing investigations.

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking bail to the petitioner/accused No.2 in Crime No.228 of 2025 on the file of the P.S. Miyapur, Cyberabad Commissionerate, 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’).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.02.2025 at 07:00 hours, Sub-Inspector received credible information about a woman in possession of MDMA at Miyapur Bus Stop. After informing his superior and following due procedure under the NDPS Act, a team was assembled including mediators, staff, and Clues team. At around 09:00 hours, a woman matching the description was identified and detained. She was identified as petitioner. Upon inquiry, she voluntarily opened her green handbag, revealing a white crystalline substance, later confirmed as MDMA by the Clues team. Petitioner confessed to her involvement in drug distribution under the direction of one Warren Kokarango, an African national, and detailed her prior deliveries to an individual named Maruthi Manohar in Bengaluru. She also provided bank account details used for transactions. Approximately 60 grams of MDMA was seized. Basing on the same, Crime No.228 of 2025 was registered.

3. Heard Mr.K.Akhil Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the offence and basing on the confession statement given by the other accused, she was 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 petitioner. He further submitted that the Police conducted the search in violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 50(4) of the NDPS Act, as the petitioner is a woman and the search was carried out by a male officer in the absence of a female officer. Hence, the crime initiated against the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of the NDPS Act.

5. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Pubjab v. Surinder Rani Alias Chhindi, [(2000) 10 SCC 429]. He further submitted that the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents and she shall abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court, and she is ready to cooperate with the investigation.

Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner and other accused have committed grave offence and the contraband seized is 60 grams of MDMA, which is commercial quantity and accused Nos.1 and 3 are absconding and the petitioner was arrested only on 19.02.2025 and the investigation is under progress, and at this stage if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every chance to interfere with the investigation and also influence the witness. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the seized contraband is 60 grams of MDMA and there are specific allegations against the petitioner, 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, contraband seized in the present case is 60 grams of MDMA, which is more than commercial quantity.

8. At this stage, it is pertinent to note Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which r