THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11138 OF 2025

ORDER:

The present Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail, who is arrayed as accused No.1 in Cr.NCB F.No.48/1/1/2024/NCB/HZU of Kukatpally Police Station, registered for the offences under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(c), Sections 27A, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.04.2024, specific information was received by the de-facto complainant and the petitioner-accused and other accused were apprehended and also 721.42 kgs of ganja was seized. Basing on the same, the above said crime was registered.

3. Heard Sri P.Vikas Raj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri V.T.Kalyan, learned Standing Counsel of Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly submitted that though the petitioner/accused No.1 is only a driver of the vehicle, he is falsely implicated in the present crime solely based on the confession statement of accused No.2. He secondly submitted that the petitioner was in judicial custody since 12.04.2024, causing undue hardship to his family. He thirdly submitted that investigation has been completed and charge sheet filed, therefore, there is no question of tampering with the evidence and there is no chance of conclusion of trial in the near future. He fourthly submitted that as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, the accused cannot be kept in jail in the case of prolonged period of trial. He lastly submitted that the petitioner is taking care of his girl child and his mother

and prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition by granting regular bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel opposed the bail, stating that a huge commercial quantity was seized from the petitioner. If the petitioner is released on bail, he may abscond and commit similar offences. There are no reasonable grounds in this case to conclude that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence. The investigation is under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and hence the petitioner is not entitled to bail. He also submitted that the petitioner cannot be released merely on the ground of delay and Section 436-A of the Cr.P.C., is not applicable in this case as it is only one of the mechanisms under law and not an absolute ground for release. In the instant case, the seized contraband is a commercial quantity and he is in jail for not less than five years, thus, he cannot be released on bail according to Section 436-A of the Cr.P.C. Hence, he prayed the Court dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. Considering the submissions of both the parties and the material on record, the quantity involved in this case is 721.42 Kgs of Ganja. Though it is stated that the petitioner was not aware about the Ganja in the said vehicle, whether he is in conscious possession or not cannot be decided at this stage. However, it is pertinent to refer to 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