THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11241 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.321/2025 before the Narsampet Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 3.8.2024, while patrolling, the Sub Inspector of Police, Narsampet Police Station, was conducting vehicle checking at Khannapur Cross Roads, Narsampet Town, and when he stopped a vehicle and found which descended and fled away on seeing the police party. In the second car, the petitioner was found sitting beside accused No.1 and on seeing the police, the petitioner descended from the car and accused No.1 was apprehended. On enquiry, accused Nos.1 and 2 disclosed that they possessed ganja in the cars, due to which accused Nos.3 and petitioner fled away. Thereafter, the police seized 60 kgs of ganja from first car, and 68 packets from second car. Pleading that petitioner is no way connected to the offence as alleged, this criminal petition is filed.

3. Heard Smt SP Durga Gayatri, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 – State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner denies all allegations and claims false implication, having committed no offence. She further submitted that the complaint allegations lacks to mention the specific role of petitioner, yet he was implicated, solely on the basis of confessional statement of other accused. With no connection to the alleged offence, the petitioner fears arrest, harming his reputation, therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre arrest 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 allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He further submitted that the commercial quantity of 60kgs of ganja is involved in this case.

Therefore, while advocating that the matter requires investigation, 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 as there are no specific set of allegations leveled against the petitioner., whereas, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the petition, citing that commercial quantity of ganja was seized in the case. 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