##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4126 of 2026

DATE: 06.04.2026

BETWEEN:

Nandhi Singh

…..petitioner/accused No.6

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.6 in Crime No.09 of 2026 before the Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad, registered for the offence

2 SKS, J Crl.P.No.4126 of 2026

punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS

Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 31.01.2026, acting on credible information, the Excise officials conducted a raid at a house in Rahimpura, Hyderabad, and apprehended Accused Nos.1 to 5, from whose possession about 29.14 kgs of ganja was seized. A case was registered and the accused were remanded to judicial custody. The present petitioner was shown as Accused No.6 and was later arrested on PT warrant on 12.02.2026, though no contraband was seized from his

possession.

3. Heard Sri Gulab Singh, 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 is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case without any material evidence and that no contraband was recovered from the petitioner and his involvement is not established. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since

3 SKS, J Crl.P.No.4126 of 2026

12.02.2026 and is not required for further investigation. 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 opposes the petition contending that the offence involves illegal possession and transportation of a commercial quantity of ganja, which is a grave offence under the NDPS Act and that the petitioner is part of the network involved in the offence and his role requires thorough investigation. He contended that there are three cases pending against the petitioner. Therefore, 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 29.14 kgs of ganja and the other cases are also pending for the same offence. At this stage, it is pertinent to

note Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under:

4 SKS, J Crl.P.No.4126 of 2026

“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.”

7. In view thereof, Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that offences involving commercial quan