IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2933 OF 2026 DATE : 18.03.2026 Between :

Panda Stevehans.

… Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Rep., by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

… Respondent : ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused in Crime No.990 of 2025 before the Kushaiguda Police Station, Medchal Malkajgiri District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 22(c) and 27(B) of NDPS Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.12.2025, at about 12:00 hours, Sri B. Srinivas, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kushaiguda Police Station, received credible information that two persons aged 25–30 years would arrive near Coffee Cup Shop, Sainikpuri, between 14:00 and 14:30 hours to sell LSD blots to known customers. Acting upon the information, the police team, along with mediators and Clues Team, apprehended four persons near the said shop. On search conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, 12 multi- coloured LSD blots weighing 0.2 grams were recovered from the pant pocket of accused No.1, Muniyadi Sathish Kumar @ Steev. The other accused persons, including the petitioner/Accused No.3, Panda Stevehans, were also apprehended, and their mobile phones seized. A case was registered in Crime No.990/2025 under Sections 8(c) r/w 22(c) and 27(b) of the NDPS Act.

3. Heard Sri Tharun Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case without any recovery from him. He contended that there is no evidence to establish conscious possession or knowledge of the contraband by the petitioner, and mere presence with the co- accused cannot constitute an offence under the NDPS Act. He averred that the entire case rests on confessional statements made in police custody, which are inadmissible. While advocating that the petitioner is a B.Tech graduate, has no criminal antecedents, and has deep social roots, having resided at the same address for six years, he prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail stating that the recovery of LSD blots from Accused No.1 and the confessional statements of co-accused clearly establish the involvement of the petitioner in the drug transaction. He further contended that the offence under the NDPS Act is grave, involving commercial quantity, and strict compliance with Section 37 is mandatory. Therefore, he prayed this Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the case against the petitioner is false and fictitious, whereas, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the petition, citing that the seized contraband is commercial quantity. That being so, 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 a