IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2602 of 2026 DATE: 09.03.2026 BETWEEN:

Feroz Ahmed and another …..petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 4 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 petitioners on bail who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 4 in Crime No.220 of 2025 before the Bhanoor Police Station, Sangareddy District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.08.2025, upon receiving credible information, the police kept watch on two vehicles, namely a Swift Dzire and a Mahindra Bolero, allegedly transporting dry ganja on the ORR service road near Pati ‘X’ Road. At about 10:55 hours, the vehicles were intercepted and Accused Nos.1 to 4 were apprehended. On search, 128 kilograms of dry ganja was allegedly seized, and it was stated that they were transporting the contraband from Odisha to Maharashtra for illegal sale. Based on the panchanama, a case was registered under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.

3. Heard Sri Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners 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 petitioners were falsely implicated and that no contraband was recovered from their conscious possession and that the prosecution failed to specify from which vehicle the ganja was seized and who was in possession of it, thereby creating serious doubt about conscious possession. He further submitted that there was non-compliance with mandatory provisions under Sections 50 and 52A of the NDPS Act, no independent witnesses were examined, and the case was based solely on inadmissible confessional statements. The petitioners had been in judicial custody since 18.08.2025, the investigation was completed and charge sheet filed, and their continued detention was unnecessary. 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 128 kgs of ganja. 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