THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13302 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed before this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.5 in connection with FIR.No.10 of 2025 before the Cyberabad Narcotics Police Station, TG Anti Narcotics Bureau, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 25, 25-A, 27-A and 29 of NDPS Act.

2. The brief facts of the case revolves around the allegations of a large-scale Ephedrine manufacturing and trafficking operation, with the petitioner, Maddu Prasad, implicated as a key conspirator. The investigation led to the seizure of 225.16 kgs of Ephedrine from a flat in Hyderabad, and four accused were apprehended. The role of petitioner is allegedly linked to his position as Director of PNM Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., with allegations that he conspired with others to manufacture and sell the contraband.

3. Heard Sri Koushik Kanduri, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent – State.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the offences as alleged, and stated that the allegations against the petitioner are with regard to large-scale Ephedrine manufacturing and trafficking operation, but he averred that the said substance is not an NDPS substance and the same was not in possession of petitioner. In support of the same, he relied on the judgment rendered by Delhi High Court in the case of Joy Mitra Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3016 , and also the judgments rendered by this Court in Crl.P.Nos.4140 and 6564 of 2025. Therefore, he prayed this Court to allow the criminal petition, granting the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, vehemently, opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner, and submitted that the

involvement of petitioner in manufacturing and trafficking of Ephedrine is established through co-accused statements and seizure of reactors and raw materials from PNM Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., a company owned and controlled by the petitioner, holding the post of Director. He contended that the active role of petitioner in the operations of company and the prima facie evidence suggest his culpability. Therefore, 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 it is the specific contention of learned counsel for petitioner that Ephedrine is not a narcotic substance and does not fall under NDPS Act, whereas, it is imperative to note that in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Central Government issued two successive regulatory frameworks, the NDPS (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 1993 and its successor, the NDPS (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 2013, both aimed at controlling substances that may be used in the manufacture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. The 1993 Order was premised on the Government’s opinion that such regulation was necessary and expedient in the public interest, and it laid down procedural safeguards for manufacture, sale, transport, and reporting. The 2013 Order, which repealed and replaced the earlier framework, reaffirmed the statutory basis under Section 9-A and introduced a more structured regime of registration, documentation, and inter-zonal coordination, thereby strengthening oversight over controlled substances in alignment with evolving enforcement needs and international obligations.

7. That being so, it is clear that Ephedrine is a controlled substance and petitioner is the Director of PNM Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., having active role in the operations of company where huge quantity of Ephedrine was found in possession and its manufacturin