Telangana High Court
Bandi Raju Babu Raju vs The State Of Telangana, on 6 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2516 of 2025
ORDER:
The present Criminal Petition is filed, seeking the Court to
enlarge the petitioners, on bail, who are arrayed as accused
Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.61 of 2025 of Hayathnagar Police
Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate. The offences alleged
against the petitioners are under Sections 8 (c) r/w. 22 (b)(ii)(c),
29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(for short ‘NDPS Act‘).
2. The case of the prosecution is that On January 12, 2025,
at 22:30 hours, Sub-Inspector of Police, Hayathnagar PS,
received credible information about a Toyota Innova car carrying
ganja. The police intercepted the vehicle and apprehended two
suspects, Bandi Raju Babu and Talati Durga Prasad, while one
person, Pangi Sunil Kumar, escaped. Upon searching the
vehicle, 28.78 kg of ganja was seized, along with two cell phones
and the vehicle itself. The suspects confessed to transporting
and selling ganja, revealing that they had purchased it from
Lokon in Odisha and sold some of it in Hyderabad. The police
2
recorded the confessions and seized the evidence, and the
suspects were taken into custody. Further investigation is
needed to apprehend the other accused individuals.
3. Heard Sri G. Anil Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent – State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bail
application of the petitioner should be granted due to several
irregularities in the case of the prosecution. Specifically, the
sampling of the seized substance was not done under the
supervision of a magistrate as required by Section 52-A of the
NDPS Act. He further submitted that the remand case diary
does not mention the preparation of an inventory of the seized
substance or sending it for chemical examination and that the
contraband was not seized in the presence of gazetted officers as
required by Section 50 of the Act. He contended that the
petitioner was falsely implicated, has no criminal antecedents,
and is willing to cooperate with the investigation. In support of
his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon
the judgment of this Court in Criminal Petition No.4428 of
3
2022. 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 bail on the ground that the seized contraband is
commercial quantity and petitioner is remanded only on
30.01.2025. Investigation is not yet completed and prayed to
dismiss this application.
6. In support of his submission, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif 1 , wherein in
paragraph No.40, it is held as under:
“40. The impugned order based on the inferences and
surmises, in utter disregard of the statutory provision of
the Act and in utter disregard of the mandate contained
in Section 37 of the Act, and granting bail to the
accused merely on the ground that the compliance of
Section 52A was not done within reasonable time, is
highly erroneous and deserves to be quashed and set
aside. Since, the High Court has not considered the
application of the respondent on merits and has also
not considered the mandatory requirement under
Section 37(1)(b) of the Act, we deem it appropriate to
remand the case to the High Court for deciding the bail
application of the respondent afresh on merits and in
accordance with law.”
1
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3848
4
7. This Court, considering submissions made by both the
learned counsel and reviewing the record, it is noted that the
contention of the petitioners 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 approximately 28.78 kgs of
ganja. At this stage, it is pertinent to note Section 37 of the
NDPS Act, and the same 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
5the 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.”
8. In view thereof, Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that
offences involving commercial quantities be non-bailable,
requiring reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not
guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. In
the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, this Court is
not satisfied that conditions for granting bail under Section 37
are met. That apart, even as per the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narcotics Control
Bureau (supra), it was made clear that bail cannot not be
granted to the accused if the due procedure, particularly, with
respect to the statutory provisions of the Act, are not followed.
Therefore, the Criminal Petition lacks merit and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 06.03.2025
Sai
[ad_1]
Source link