THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.12658 of 2025

ORDER:

Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.125 of 2025 of Begumbazar Police Station, Hyderabad, on bail, the present Criminal Petition is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.07.2025, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad, received credible information and apprehended three accused persons near Shezan Hotel, Nampally, for possession and sale of Mephedrone (MD drug). During the search, 100 grams of MD drug, three mobile phones, and a country-made pistol with live rounds were allegedly seized.

3. Heard Sri M. Muralidhar, learned counsel representing Sri Srinivas Nayak, 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 a vegetable vendor and was falsely implicated solely on the basis of the alleged confessional statement of the co-accused, which had no evidentiary value in view of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1. He further submitted that the quantity attributed to the petitioner was only 30 grams, an intermediate quantity, and therefore, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act was not attracted. He contended that the petitioner had no criminal antecedents, had been in custody since 22.07.2025, and the investigation was substantially completed. 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 without following the due procedure. However, the Additional Public Prosecutor opposes bail citing commercial quantity weighing 100 grams of MD drug. 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. In view thereof, 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. Therefore, the criminal petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, this