THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9568 OF 2025

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/A.4seeking regular bail in connection with Cr.No.72 of 2025 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Ghatkesar. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 8 (c) r/w.20 (b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.05.2025 between 5.00 p.m. and 8.00 p.m, near Ghatkesar Toll Plaza, the police intercepted a four wheeler vehicle bearing No.KA 19 M 2167 in which the petitioner along with other accused were travelling. On search of the vehicle, the police found 29 bundles of dry ganja weighing approximately 58.88 Kgs, in brown tape wrapped packets and kept in the boot area of the vehicle. It is further alleged that the petitioner and other accused were acting at the instructions of one of the absconding accused who had instructed them to purchase and transport the contraband from Bhadrachalam through various toll routes up to Adilabad.

Based on the confession of accused the contraband was seized in the presence of panchas and report was filed.

3. Heard Sri L.Sai Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent – State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case basing on the confession statement of co-accused. The petitioner is neither owner nor driver of the crime vehicle and he has no role in procuring or selling the substance. He also contended that no recovery is made from the petitioner herein and the only allegation is that he was found in the company of others in the crime vehicle. Further, the father of petitioner passed away recently and he is only male member to look after his family. Petitioner has no criminal antecedents and is a law abiding citizen and he undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail on the ground that the petitioner was found in possession of contraband and the same was seized from A.1 to A.5. Further, the seized contraband is a commercial quantity and the petitioner herein is a resident of Bidar, Karnataka State, and if bail is granted, it may become difficult for the investigating officer in concluding the investigation and he may commit similar offences. As such, prayed this Court to dismiss this bail application.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, the contraband seized in this case is a huge commercial quantity and the same was recovered from A.1 to A.5. Further, petitioner is a resident of Karnataka State. At this stage, it is pertinent to note Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and the same 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 N