THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.12275 of 2025

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/A2 seeking regular bail in connection with C.O.R.No.53 of 2025 of Excise Police Station, Hayathnagar District, Ranga Reddy, on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, at LB.Nagar. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 8 (c) read with 22 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and A1 were in possession of huge commercial quantity of 17.91kgs of Alprazolam. The petitioner is in judicial custody since

04.06.2025.

3. Heard Sri P.Vikasraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent – State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was arrested on 04.06.2025 and since then he is languishing in jail. He submitted that petitioner is innocent of the offences as alleged and is wrongly implicated in the case. He further submitted that the petitioner has got fixed abode and is ready to furnish sureties and abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court and undertake to cooperate with the investigation. As such, prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail on the ground that the contraband seized from the accused is a huge commercial quantity. Further the investigation is not yet completed and at this stage, if the petitioner is released on bail, it may cause hardship to the investigating agency and there are no changed circumstances from the earlier bail application. As such, prayed this Court to dismiss this bail application.

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 contraband 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.

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.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_______________

K. SUJANA, J Date: 26.09.2