IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.15736 of 2025

DATE: 15.12.2025

BETWEEN:

Goundla Mallesham

…..petitioner/accused No.2

And

The State of Telangana,

Rep. by Public Prosecutor,

High Court for the State of Telangana,

at Hyderabad.

…..Respondent/complainant

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 480 & 483

of Bharaitya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.332 of 2025 of Sangareddy Town

Police Station, Sangareddy District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 8 (c) r/w. Sections 21(C), 22(C), 27(A), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.08.2025 on reliable information about manufacturing of Alprazolam in a house at Ganesh Nagar, Sangareddy Town, the S.I of Police, Sangareddy Town Police Station along with his team rushed to the said place at 17:00 hours, and conducted raid in house bearing No.5-1-92/12/g/A/1, Ganesh Nagar, Sangareddy Town and two individuals were found manufacturing Alprazolam. Upon entering the house, the police discovered various apparatus including glass flasks, water baths, and drums in the hall and two bedrooms. The individuals identified themselves as Goundla Srinivas Goud engaged in agriculture and real estate, Goundla Mallesham, who is running a tiffin center. Their confession statements were recorded and the police seized 270 grams of Alprazolam and raw material used in preparing the contraband from the possession of accused under cover of panchanama and registered a case against the accused for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that basing on the confession of A.1, the petitioner herein was arrested and recorded his confession statement showing him as A.2 and he is falsely implicated in this case. Except the alleged confession there is nothing on record to link the petitioner to the alleged offence. No recovery is made from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is in jail from 30.08.2025 and most of the investigation is completed. The petitioner is running a tiffin centre and no other cases are pending against him. Hence, prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail stating that the quantity involved is a huge commercial quantity and in view of rigor of Section 37 of NDPS Act, petitioner is not entitled for bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.

6. This Court, considering submissions made by both the learned counsel and reviewing the material available on record, it is noted that the contention of the petitioner that the case is false, fictitious, and fabricated, the case was registered without following the due procedure. However, the Additional Public Prosecutor opposes bail citing commercial quantity weighing 270 grams of Alprazolam. 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 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 suc