: COMMON ORDER :

These criminal petitions are filed under Section 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying this Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively in Crime No.301 of 2026 of Hayathnagar Police Station, Ranga Reddy District. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 8(c) r/w.20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 25.02.2026, the complainant received credible information that three persons were illegally transporting ganja in a Renault Duster bearing No.CG 04 KJ 9090 from Vijayawada towards Hayathnagar. The said information was reduced into writing, entered in the General Diary, and communicated to the superior officers under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act. Thereafter, in the presence of mediators and Clues Team staff, the police laid a watch near Taaza Hotel, Pedda Amberpet, and intercepted the said vehicle at about 1:34 PM. Two persons, namely Shaik Ashraf Pasha and Hiranand Poddar, were found in the vehicle. Upon search, 15 packets containing flowering and fruiting tops of ganja were found concealed in the dickey of the car. The contraband was shifted to a nearby place for detailed proceedings, weighed, and found to be 33.36 kilograms of ganja. During enquiry, the accused allegedly confessed that the ganja was procured from Odisha for illegal transportation and sale at Pune through Hyderabad for wrongful gain. The police seized the contraband, mobile phones, cash, and the said vehicle and registered the case against the accused for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri Umesh Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent - State.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 contended that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case without any credible material connecting them with the alleged transportation or trade of ganja. It is submitted that no contraband was seized from their personal possession and that the prosecution case is based mainly on alleged confessional statements and assumptions. The learned counsel further contended that the mandatory procedure prescribed under the NDPS Act was not followed during search, seizure, arrest, and registration of the crime, thereby vitiating the case of the prosecution. It is also submitted that the petitioners were unlawfully apprehended, subjected to coercive interrogation, and falsely shown as accused without proper investigation. The petitioners are stated to be law-abiding persons, working as drivers, having family responsibilities, and no criminal antecedents. It is further argued that there is no prima facie material showing their involvement in procurement, transportation, or sale of ganja, and that continued detention would cause severe hardship to their families. Hence, prayed this Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail contending that the contraband seized in this case is 33.36 kgs of dry ganja which is a commercial quantity. As such, in view of rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioners are not entitled to bail and prayed to dismiss these petitions.

6. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, the petitioners herein are A.1 and A.2 respectively and they are remanded to judicial custody on 26.02.2026. The seized material in this case is a huge commercial quantity of 33.36 kgs of dry ganja. That being so, it is relevant to extract 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