HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.1922 of 2026 Date: 17.02.2026 Between:

Aujigari Santosh Reddy and another ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 & 5 AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Telangana ... Respondent :: O R D E R ::

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C.NDPS No.156 of 2024 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(B) and 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

2. Heard Mr. Karthik Madhanu, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in the present case solely based on the confession statement given by accused No.1. He further submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioners is that they purchased ganja from accused No.1. However, no contraband was seized from the petitioners. The petitioners were also sent for medical examination and the medical reports reveal that they had not consumed ganja. He also submitted that the issue raised in this criminal petition is squarely covered by the orders dated 11.09.2025 in Crl.P.No.650 of 2024, dated 25.04.2023 in Crl.P.No.2902 of 2023, and dated 27.11.2025 in Crl.P.No.12693 of 2025. Therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner.

5. Section 64 of the NDPS Act empowers the Central Government or the State Government to grant immunity to any person who is directly or indirectly privy to violation of any of the penal provisions of NDPS Act with a view to obtain his evidence for prosecuting the accused in a case. Section 64 of the NDPS Act is similar to Section 306 of Cr.P.C whereby a Court can tender pardon. However, it is the state or central government that is competent to grant immunity under Section 64.

6. Section 64-A of the NDPS Act was substituted by Act 9 of 2001 with effect from 02.10.2001 for the purpose of granting immunity to addicts. Section 64-A of the NDPS Act is extracted for the sake of convenience:

“64-A. Immunity from prosecution to addicts volunteering for treatment.—Any addict, who is charged with an offence punishable under section 27 or with offences involving small quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, who voluntarily seeks to undergo medical treatment for de-addiction from a hospital or an institution maintained or recognized by the Government or a local authority and undergoes such treatment shall not be liable to prosecution under section 27 or under any other section for offences involving small quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances:

Provided that the said immunity from prosecution may be withdrawn if the addict does not undergo the complete treatment for de-addiction.”

7. Section 64-A of the NDPS Act was introduced but there is no mention about the authority, by whom such immunity can be granted from prosecution to the addicts volunteering for treatment. The Legislature had deemed it fit to introduce the provision under Section 64-A of the NDPS Act to grant immunity to persons who are addicted to drugs and not in any way involved either with peddling or sale of drugs. In the absence of any specification regarding the authority or the procedure to grant immunity from prosecution to the addicts volunteering treatment, this Court under the inherent powers can quash the proceedings by granting immunity from prosecution considering the facts and circumstances in a given case. In similar circumstances, the High Court of Madras in the case of Sanjiv Bhatnagar v. State, repre