##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5024 of 2026

DATE: 24.04.2026

BETWEEN:

Masaanwale Sainath Singh

…..petitioner/accused No.1

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.1

in COR.No.09 of 2026 of Prohibition and Excise Police Station,

2

SKS,J

Crl.P.No.5024 of 2026

Dhoolpet, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable

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

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 31.01.2026 at

about 12:45 PM, on receiving credible information, the Excise

officials of Excise Station Dhoolpet conducted a raid at

Rahimpura, Shivlal Nagar, Asifnagar, Hyderabad. During the

raid, accused Nos.1 to 5 were allegedly found in illegal

possession of and transporting dry ganja weighing 29.14

kilograms. The contraband was seized under a panchanama,

and a case was registered. Thereafter, the accused were

arrested, produced before the jurisdictional Court, and

remanded to judicial custody on 31.01.2026.

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/Accused No.1 is innocent and has been falsely

implicated in the present case and that he has no connection

with the alleged offence and was implicated for extraneous

3

SKS,J

Crl.P.No.5024 of 2026

reasons. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in

judicial custody since 31.01.2026, the trial may take

considerable time, and continued incarceration would cause

hardship. He further submitted that the petitioner’s parents

are aged, bedridden, and dependent on him, as he is the sole

breadwinner. The petitioner is ready to furnish sureties and

abide by any conditions imposed by the Court. Therefore, he

prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing

this Criminal Petition.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application contending that the petitioner was apprehended

along with other accused persons in possession of a

commercial quantity of ganja weighing 29.14 kilograms and

that the offence is grave in nature under the NDPS Act, and

the investigation concerns illegal possession and

transportation of narcotic substance. He contended that if

released on bail, there is every possibility of the petitioner

absconding, tampering with evidence, or influencing

prosecution witnesses. At this stage, granting of bail to the

petitioner does not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Court to

dismiss the criminal petition.

4

SKS,J

Crl.P.No.5024 of 2026

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 dry ganja of 29.14 kilograms. 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