THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9727 of 2025

ORAL ORDER:

Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioners, who arrayed as

accused Nos.4 to 7 in Crime No.171 of 2025 of Begumpet Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on bail, the present

Criminal Petition is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.04.2025, the police received credible information that four individuals were transporting ganja. The police intercepted the accused and recovered 81.15 kilograms of ganja from the possession of accused Nos. 4 to 7. The accused revealed that they were transporting it to Mumbai to sell it to needy customers. The accused were arrested,

and a case was registered against them.

3. Heard Sri P. Vikasraj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and that only 30.58 kilograms of ganja were recovered from their possession. He further submitted that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the past 83 days and that the police failed to comply with the mandatory procedures prescribed under Sections 42, 50, and 57 of NDPS Act and that the petitioners are poor tribal citizens hailing from Odisha and also relied upon the judgments rendered in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2020) 9 SCC 1 and Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioners by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the quantity of contraband allegedly seized in this case amounts to 81.15 kilograms, which constitutes a commercial quantity under the law. He further submitted that the investigation is in progress and if the petitioners are released on bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the evidence and may threaten the witnesses. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and reviewing the material available on record, it is noted that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the past 83 days and 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 81.15 Kgs of ganja was recovered from the petitioners. 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 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 force on granting of bail.”

7. In view thereof, Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that offences involving commercial quantities be non-bailable, requiri