THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2105 of 2025

ORDER:

The present Criminal Petition is filed, seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner, on bail, who is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.111 of 2024 of Excise Police Station, Saroornagar. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 8 (c) r/w.22 (C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

2. The prosecution's case is that on 22.11.2024, at about 3:10 p.m., the Station House Officer, Saroornagar Police Station, along with the SFT-D team and a Drug Inspector, detected a case of illegal possession of narcotics at Shyam Steel Palace, a shop located opposite to Nalla Pochamma temple on Karmanghat Road, Kethepalle Muni Sekhar and Gandla Ramulu, were found standing with six cardboard boxes containing Fentanyl, Jakelav 625, Jikeef-LB, and Jikpod-CV. Upon further inquiry, they revealed that they had purchased the narcotics from Mahesh Kumar Saini without valid permission or licenses. The police seized the drugs in the presence of panch witnesses and prepared a panchnama. The Drug Inspector identified the seized substances, confirming that some were related to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) while others were not. Based on the panchnama, the Excise Police registered a case against the accused for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri G.Sunderasan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of Drug Inspector due to personal disputes. Basing on the confession of co-accused, petitioner was implicated. Mere failure to produce the drug licence would not attract the provisions of NDPS Act, but may attract the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The petitioner is in jail from

22.11.2024. Hence, prayed 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 possession of accused is a huge commercial quantity and in view of rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, petitioner is not entitled for bail. As such, prayed this Court to dismiss this application.

6. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that mere failure to produce the drug licence, would not attract the provisions of NDPS Act but may attract the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, whereas in the present case, the seized contraband is Fentanyl which comes under the NDPS Act. According to the prosecution, petitioner was found with this drug in illegal possession and the seized contraband is also commercial quantity. 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 NDPS Act mandates that off