IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3443 of 2026

30.03.2026 Between:

Suden Roy, and another.

PETITIONERS AND State of Telangana, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

RESPONDENT

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail who are arrayed as accused Nos.3 and 4 in Crime No.593 of 2025 before the Kolluru Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w

20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Accused Nos.2 to 4, natives of West Bengal residing at labour camps in Hyderabad, allegedly conspired with Accused No.1 to purchase about 45 kgs of dry Ganja for illegal sale to labourers. On 23.11.2025, while Accused Nos.3 and 4 were shifting the contraband to G-Block at My Home Labour Camp, Tellapur, the police conducted a raid and apprehended them with 41.9 kgs of dry Ganja. Based on the panchanama, a case was registered against them under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act.

3. Heard Sri P. Sriharinath, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been languishing in judicial custody since 23.11.2025 and while averring that petitioner has been cooperating with the prosecution. He further submitted that the alleged recovery of Ganja from the possession of Petitioner No.1/Accused No.3 is only 9.3 kgs and from Petitioner No.2/Accused No.4 is 10.7 kgs, both of which are below the threshold of commercial quantity as notified under the NDPS Act. He contended that commercial quantity under the Act means any quantity of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance greater than the threshold specified by the Central Government, and only when such commercial quantity is involved, the stringent twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. Since the seized quantity in the present case is below commercial, the bar under Section 37 is not applicable, and the bail application must be considered on general principles. 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 was implicated in the crime for his alleged active involvement in the possession of contraband. Therefore, he prayed the 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 though the petitioners contend that the recovery from their individual possession was only 9.3 kgs and 10.7 kgs respectively, the prosecution case clearly establishes that the contraband seized in total was 41.9 kgs of dry Ganja. As per the NDPS Act, commercial quantity is defined as any quantity of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance greater than the threshold specified by the Central Government, and in the case of Ganja, the notified threshold for commercial quantity is 20 kgs and above. Since the total contraband seized in the present case is 41.9 kgs, which is well above the threshold, the offence squarely falls within the ambit of commercial quantity. Consequently, the stringent twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted, and bail cannot be considered on general principles. In view of the gravity of the offence, the nature of the contraband, and the statutory bar under Section 37, this Court is not inclined to grant bail.

7. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there are no merits in this criminal petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand clo