Telangana High Court
Mahender Singh, vs The State Of Telangana on 7 October, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12352 of 2025
ORDER:
Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.75 of 2025 of Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad, on bail, the present Criminal Petition is filed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner along with co-accused was found in possession of 1.510 kgs of ganja, 12.29 grams of MDMA, and 5 dots of LSD jelly, and that he was engaged in sale and purchase of narcotic substances for profit.
3. Heard Sri Umesh Singh, 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 allegations were false and baseless, and that no material evidence connected the petitioner with the alleged crime except the inadmissible confessional statements of co- 2
SKS,J Crl.P.No.12352 of 2025 accused, which could not be relied upon in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu and Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal. He further submitted that the petitioner was innocent, a law-abiding citizen, handicapped, and the sole breadwinner of his family, with aged and ailing parents. He contended that the petitioner had no role in the transport or sale of narcotics, that the investigation was almost completed, and that there was no possibility of absconding or tampering with evidence. 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.
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 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.12352 of 2025 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 1.510 kgs of ganja, 12.29 grams of MDMA, and 5 dots of LSD jelly. 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.
(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, 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.12352 of 2025 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: 07.10.2025 SAI 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.12352 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.12352 of 2025 Date: 07.10.2025 SAI