Telangana High Court
Abhay Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 27 November, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.14841 of 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner, on bail, who is arrayed as accused in COR.No.130 of 2025 of Sangareddy Police Station, Sangareddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B), 21(b) and 22 (c) of NDPS Act, 1985.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.08.2025 the Excise Enforcement team of Medak Division conducted a route watch on NH-65 near Gokul Function Hall, Kistaigudem Gate, Sangareddy. During the check, they stopped an Atmaram Travels bus bearing No. GA 03 V 8397 and, while searching it in the presence of panch witnesses, allegedly found one person acting suspiciously and recovered 108 grams of Charas, 2.90 grams of MDMA, 10 blots of LSD paper weighing 0.18 grams, 3.01 grams of Cocaine, 4.4 grams of MDMA Ecstasy pills and a mobile phone from his possession. The accused was apprehended on the spot and handed over to SHO Sangareddy. 2
SKS,J Crl.P.No.14841 of 2025
3. Heard Sri Prudhvi Raju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint was false and fabricated only to harass the petitioner, who had no connection with the alleged offence and that the entire investigation had been completed and a charge sheet was filed, hence further detention was unnecessary. He further submitted that the father of the petitioner was on a ventilator suffering from paralysis and his sister was undergoing treatment for breast cancer, and therefore his presence at home was essential. 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 opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner is a drug peddler. He further submitted that the investigation is in progress and if the petitioner is released on bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the evidence and may threaten the witnesses. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 3
SKS,J Crl.P.No.14841 of 2025
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 108 grams of Charas, 2.90 grams of MDMA, 10 blots of LSD paper weighing 0.18 grams, 3.01 grams of Cocaine, 4.4 grams of MDMA Ecstasy pills. 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 he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.4
SKS,J Crl.P.No.14841 of 2025 (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 quantities be non-bailable, requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. Given the serious allegations against the petitioner, this Court is not satisfied that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are met. Therefore, the criminal petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 27.11.2025 SAI