Telangana High Court
Goundla Sangameshwar Goud, vs Union Of India on 7 May, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVASRAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6346 of 2025
ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’)
by the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.1, seeking bail in
F.No.48/1/4/2024/NCB/HZU of Narcotics Control Bureau,
Hyderabad Zone, registered for the offence punishable under
Sections 8(c) read with Section 22(c), 27A, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred
to as, ‘NDPS Act‘).
2. Heard Mr.B. Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner,
and Mr. P.Shashi Kiran, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 22.09.2024, the
Sub-Inspector of Police, Narcotics Control Bureau, Hyderabad Zone,
on receiving information that the petitioner is trafficking a
substantial quantity of Alprazolam to Medak, via Hyderabad route
in a Maruthi Suzuki Ertiga Car bearing No.TS 07 EV 5557, he along
with staff intercepted the vehicle before entering the Raikal Toll
Plaza on Jadcherla, Shadnagar. On enquiry, the driver of the car,
namely Thodeti Krishna, and the petitioner confessed about
2
trafficking of alprazolam and 6.03 kgs. were seized from them under
a cover of a panchanama. Hence, registered the present complaint.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has not committed the alleged offence and he was falsely
implicated in this case as accused No.1. He further submitted that
the petitioner was arrested on 22.09.2024 and since then he has
been in judicial custody. He further submitted that the
Investigating Officer has not filed the complaint within the statutory
period. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for grant of statutory bail.
The petitioner is aged about 75 years and suffering with old-age
ailments and he will appear before the Court below and also abide
by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court. The
petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents. Therefore, he
prayed to release the petitioner on bail.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the bail petition
and submitted that the petitioner has committed a grave offence
and 6.03 kgs. of Alprazolam was seized from his possession, which
is a commercial quantity. The Investigating Officer after conducting
investigation filed complaint on 19.03.2025 vide SR.No.1453 of
2025 before the concerned Court within the mandatory period of
180 days. Hence, the contention raised by the learned counsel for
3
the petitioner that the Investigating Officer has not filed the
complaint within the stipulated period and that the petitioner is
entitled for grant of statutory bail is not tenable under law. He
further submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as an accused in
similar crime vide COR No.240/2011-12 of Quthbullapur Excise
Police Station, registered for the offence under Section 8(c) read
with 22(c) of the NDPS Act. Therefore, as per Section 37 of the
NDPS Act, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and after perusal of the material available on
record, it reveals that the police seized 6.03 kgs. of Alprazolam from
the petitioner, which is a commercial quantity. Even according to
the provisions of NDPS Act, 5 grams is small quantity and more
than 100 grams is a commercial quantity. The record further
reveals that the petitioner is an accused in COR No.240/2011-12 of
Quthbullapur Excise Police Station, registered for the offence under
Section 8(c) read with 22(c) of the NDPS Act. The petitioner was
arrested on 22.09.2024. It is also specifically averred that the
Investigating Officer filed complaint vide SR No.1453 of 2025
against the petitioner on 19.03.2025 before the concerned Court
within the mandatory period of 180 days i.e., one day prior to expiry
4
of statutory period. 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, 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
the petitioner involved in other case with similar offence, this Court
is not satisfied that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 of
5
the NDPS Act are met.
8. It is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner
approached this Court and filed Crl.P.No.4539 of 2025 for grant of
regular bail by raising the very same grounds and this Court
dismissed the same on 22.04.2025. Therefore, this Court does not
find any changed circumstances to grant bail in favour of the
petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________________
J.SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 07.05.2025
ES/vs
[ad_1]
Source link