##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.16231 of 2025

DATE: 22.12.2025

BETWEEN:

Lokesh Bareth

…..petitioner/accused

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.763 of 2025 before the Keesara Police Station,

2

SKS,J

Crl.P.No.16231 of 2025

Rachakonda Commissionerate, registered for the offence

punishable under Sections 17(c) and 18(b) of NDPS Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.10.2025, the

Sub-Inspector of Police, Keesara Police Station, while

conducting vehicle checks at ORR, Kundanpally, apprehended

the accused, who allegedly attempted to flee on seeing the

police and disclosed that he was carrying opium and poppy

straw. In the presence of panch witnesses, a confessional-

cum-seizure panchanama was conducted, and 7 kg 112

grams of opium, 2 kg 24 grams of poppy straw, and a mobile

phone were allegedly seized from the possession of the

accused. Thereafter, the accused and the seized property were

produced before the Station House Officer, and Crime No. 763

of 2025 was registered at Keesara Police Station for the

offences under Sections 17(c) and 18(b) of the NDPS Act.

3. Heard Sri Lalith Jogi, 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.

3

SKS,J

Crl.P.No.16231 of 2025

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

mandatory procedure under the NDPS Act was not followed,

inasmuch as no samples were drawn from the seized

contraband in accordance with Standing Order No.1 of 1989

and Sections 42 and 50 of the Act. He further submitted that

such non-compliance vitiated the prosecution case, as held by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, and that an

adverse inference was liable to be drawn against the

prosecution. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant 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

4

SKS,J

Crl.P.No.16231 of 2025

without following the due procedure. However, the Additional

Public Prosecutor opposes bail citing commercial quantity

weighing 7 kg 112 grams of opium, 2 kg 24 grams of poppy

straw. Though the petitioner contended that there was non-

compliance with Standing Order No.1 of 1989 regarding

sampling, such alleged procedural lapses cannot be

conclusively examined at the stage of bail. Whether samples

were drawn properly, whether the procedure was substantially

complied with, and the effect of any deviation are matters that

require appreciation of evidence during trial. At the stage of

bail, especially in cases involving commercial quantity, such

contentions by themselves do not create reasonable grounds

to believe that the accused is not guilty, as required under

Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

7. Further, the contention of the petitioner that violation of

Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act cannot be considered at

this stage, as the record prima facie indicates that the search

and seizure were conducted in a public place during vehicle

checking, attracting Section 43 rather than Section 42, and

Section 50 is not applicable to search of bags carrie