##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.16314 of 2025

DATE: 24.12.2025

BETWEEN:

Goundla Srinivas Goud

…..petitioner/accused No.1

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 praying this Court to

enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.1

in Crime No.332 of 2025 before the Sangareddy Town Police

Station, Sangareddy District, registered for the offence

2

SKS,J

Crl.P.No.16314 of 2025

punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 21(c), 22(c), 27(A),

25 and 29 of NDPS Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.08.2025, based

on credible information, the police conducted a raid at a

house in Ganesh Nagar, Sangareddy Town, and allegedly

found illegal manufacturing of Alprazolam. During the search,

two persons, including the petitioner (A-1), were found in the

premises along with chemicals, equipment, and substances

suspected to be Alprazolam. The Drugs Inspector identified

the raw materials as those used for manufacturing

Alprazolam, and based on the seizure and an alleged

confessional statement, Crime No.332 of 2025 was registered.

3. Heard Sri P. Vishnuvardhana Reddy, 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner was falsely implicated and was neither in conscious

possession nor control of the alleged premises or seized

materials and that the confessional statement recorded by the

3

SKS,J

Crl.P.No.16314 of 2025

police was inadmissible in law and that mandatory provisions

of the NDPS Act were not complied with. He further

submitted that there was no conclusive FSL report to

establish that the seized substance was Alprazolam, that

custodial interrogation was no longer required, and that

continued detention amounted to pre-trial punishment.

Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the

petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner stating that the petitioner is a drug peddler. He

further submitted that the investigation is in progress and if

the petitioner is 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. 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

4

SKS,J

Crl.P.No.16314 of 2025

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 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