THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13412 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.99 of 2025 before the Excise Police Station, Ameerpet, and on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(A) and 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

2. The brief facts of the case revolve around seizure of 70 grams of Ganja and 14.390 grams of MDMA. The petitioner, along with accused No.1 was found in a car bearing No.AP40CB8550 where the said contraband was seized. The petitioner was arrested, and a case was registered against the accused for the offences, as alleged.

3. Heard Sri TS Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-

State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He contended that the investigation was completed without following due process, causing prejudice to the petitioner. He asserted that the quantity of seized contraband does not fall under commercial quantity, warranting consideration for regular bail. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow this criminal petition, granting the relief of bail to petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that though the seized ganja was small quantity, the quantity of seized MDMA falls under commercial quantity, therefore, averred that the question of granting bail to the petitioner does not arise. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the case against the petitioner is false and fictitious, whereas, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the petition, citing that seized MDMA is commercial quantity. That being so, 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. From the above extracted portion, it is clear that Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that offences involving commercial quantities be non-bailable, requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. Given the serious allegations against the petitioner, this Court is not satisfied that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are met. That apart, it is pertinent to note that as per the material on record, prima facie case is made against the petitioner.

8. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there are no merits in this criminal petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.