Bail in NDPS cases involving commercial quantities is strictly regulated under Section 37, requiring the court to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail.

: ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.3 in Crime No.64 of 2026 of Abids Police Station, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 8(c) 22(C), 27(a) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

2. The facts of the case are that on 05.03.2026, the complainant received credible information that a person aged about 25 to 30 years would come near the exit gate of Babukhan Estate to deliver MD (Methamphetamine) to customers. After obtaining permission from superior officers, making necessary diary entries, and securing mediators, he along with his team proceeded to the spot and kept surveillance. At about 11:20 a.m., one suspicious person was noticed, and shortly thereafter two others joined him, whereupon the first person allegedly handed over polythene bags to the other two. The police immediately apprehended them, and they disclosed their identities as Jog Singh, Chunnaram Choudhary, and Amrith Purohit. On search, 72 grams of Methamphetamine and four mobile phones were seized from their possession under a panchanama. During interrogation, Accused No.1 allegedly stated that he had procured the contraband from Om Prakash of Rajasthan. Thereafter, the accused and seized property were taken to the police station and the case was registered against the accused for the above offences.

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

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the allegation against him is that he allegedly procured MD drugs from A.1 for his personal consumption, and there is no material to show that the petitioner was involved in sale or transportation. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 05.03.2026. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no role in the alleged offence and has been implicated with mala fide intention. He further submitted that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family, having aged and ailing parents dependent on him, and his continued detention would cause undue hardship. It is also contended that no further custodial interrogation is required, the trial may take considerable time, and the petitioner is willing to furnish sureties, cooperate with the investigation, and abide by any conditions imposed by the Court without tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Hence, prayed this Court to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail contending that the contraband seized in this case is 72 grams of Methamphetamine which is a commercial quantity. As such, in view of rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner is not entitled to bail and prayed to dismiss this petition. .

6. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, the petitioner herein is A.3 and he is remanded to judicial custody on 05.03.2026. The seized material in this case is a huge commercial quantity of 72 grams of Methamphetamine. That being so, it is relevant to extract Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which