Telangana High Court
Chitra Kailash Mohite vs The State Of Telanana on 4 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2273 of 2025
ORDER:
Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner, who is
arrayed as accused No.3in Crime No.992 of 2024 of
MailardevpallyPolice Station, Ranga Reddy District, on bail,
the present Criminal Petition is filed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.12.2024, the
Mailardevpally Police seized the contraband as the accused
persons are buying and selling the contraband illegallyto the
general public in order to earn money in an ease mannerand
also registered a case vide Crime No.992 of 2024 before the
Mailardevpally Police, Ranga Reddy District, for the offences
punishable under Section8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the
NDPS Act and Section 77 of the JJA.
3. Heard Sri P.Vikasraj, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Syed YasarMamoon,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent
– State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly submitted that
the petitioner is innocent and she is no way concerned with
2
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.2273 of 2025
the alleged offences. He secondly submitted that though there
is no corroborative evidence, the petitioner was implicated in
the case with false and fabricated allegations. He thirdly
submitted that all the material witnesses were examined, and
further detention of the petitioner is unnecessary. He fourthly
submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody
since 29.12.2024, causing undue hardship to her family. He
fifthly submitted that the petitioner is resident of Maharashtra
state, with movable and immovable properties, and is willing
to furnish sureties as directed. He lastly submitted that
previously, bail application of the petitioner vide
Crl.M.P.No.2616 of 2024 was dismissed by the learned I
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District
at L.B.Nagar, on 10.01.2025, without valid reasonsand 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 seized contraband i.e., 55.3 kgs of
ganja is commercial quantity and also the investigation is not
completed, therefore, granting bail to the petitioner, at this
stage, does not arise. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss
the criminal petition.
3
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.2273 of 2025
6. This Court, considering submissions made by both the
parties 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 learned
Additional Public Prosecutor opposes bail citing that the
seized contraband is commercial quantity. 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
4
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.2273 of 2025limitations 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.
Hence, since the allegations levelled against the petitioner are
serious in nature and seized contraband is commercial
quantity, 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: 04.03.2025
gms
