IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1591 of 2026 DATE: 23.02.2026 BETWEEN:

Edigi Chandrashekar Goud …..petitioner/accused No.1 And The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

…..Respondent/complainant

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.153 of 2025 before the Addakal Police Station, Mahabubnagar District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 22(c) and 29 of NDPS Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 31.10.2025, on receiving reliable information that certain persons were dealing in Alprazolam near Telusa Family Restaurant, Addakal, the police reached the spot and found two cars with the accused persons. On search, it was alleged that 2 kg of Alprazolam and cash of Rs.4.74 lakhs were recovered from the vehicles, and the accused persons allegedly confessed that they had procured the contraband for sale to others. Based on the said allegations, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody for offences under Sections 8(c)

read with 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

3. Heard Sri Sudarshan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was innocent and had been falsely implicated, and that the entire case was based only on an alleged confessional statement with no independent material evidence. He further submitted that there were serious procedural violations under Sections 42, 43, 50 and 52-A of the NDPS Act, no independent witnesses or CCTV evidence were collected, and the alleged seizure was doubtful, thereby rebutting the statutory presumption and excluding the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant 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 petitioner is a drug peddler. He further submitted that the investigation is in progress and if the petitioner is released on bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the evidence and may threaten the witnesses. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. This Court, considering submissions made by both the learned counsel and reviewing the material available on record, it is noted that the contention of the petitioner that the case is false, fictitious, and fabricated, the case was registered without following the due procedure. However, the Additional Public Prosecutor opposes bail citing commercial quantity weighing 2 kg of Alprazolam. 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.”