In cases involving commercial quantities of contraband under the NDPS Act, the statutory rigours of Section 37 prevail over considerations of prolonged incarceration, requiring the court to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to re-offend.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.4 in SC.NDPS.No.71 of 2023 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22, 23, 27-A, 28, 29 of the NDPS Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on specific intelligence, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence conducted a search on 21.12.2022 at a clandestine factory at Chengicherla, Hyderabad, and seized about 135.47 kgs of Mephedrone along with machinery and raw materials used for its manufacture. The petitioner/A-4 was allegedly found present at the premises and was caught red-handed while manufacturing the contraband along with other accused. Statements of the petitioner and co-accused recorded under Section 67 NDPS Act, along with scientific reports, confirm the seized substance as Mephedrone, and a charge sheet has been filed with the trial presently in progress.

3. Heard Sri P. Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Standing Cousnel for CBIC appearing on behalf of the respondent – State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is falsely implicated and there is no independent incriminating material against him, as the case is based mainly on inadmissible confessional statements and that no seizure was made from the petitioner, mandatory provisions under Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act were violated, and therefore the investigation is vitiated.

The petitioner has been in custody for more than 3 years, the trial is not concluded despite earlier directions, and he is suffering from serious medical issues, thus entitling him to bail on grounds of prolonged incarceration, parity, and violation of Article 21. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition.

5. Learned Standing Counsel strongly opposes the bail, contending that the petitioner was actively involved and was caught red-handed in manufacturing commercial quantity of Mephedrone and is a key member of an inter-state drug syndicate. He further submitted that there is sufficient material including voluntary statements, call data records, and other evidence establishing his role, and the bar under Section 37 NDPS Act squarely applies, which has not been satisfied. He contended that the trial is at a crucial stage, the petitioner has criminal antecedents, and there is every likelihood of tampering with evidence or absconding if released, and hence the bail petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the allegations against the petitioner/accused No.4 are grave and serious in nature, involving manufacture and possession of a commercial quantity of psychotropic substance i.e., Mephedrone. The material on record prima facie discloses the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence, and the contraband seized falls within “commercial quantity”, thereby attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. As per the mandate of Section 37, this Court is required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. At this stage, such satisfaction cannot be recorded in favour of the petitioner.

7. Further, the content