Telangana High Court
Kallepalli Deepak Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 14 August, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9563 OF 2025
ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/A.2 seeking
anticipatory bail in connection with Cr.No.79 of 2025 of
Chaitanyapuri Police Station, Rachakonda.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24-01-2025 at
18.35 hours, Chaitanyapuri PS, Rachakonda, received a
complaint from SI P. Bhadraiah along with the confession-cum-
seizure panchanama of accused A3, Muthyala Yashwanth. At
about 1500 hours, LW-1 received credible information that a
bearded male aged 20-26 years, riding a navy-blue Suzuki
Access 125 (TS 07 KH 4752), was coming near Pakala Plaza,
Dilsukhnagar, to sell MDMA. LW-1 informed his superior under
Sec. 42(2) NDPS Act, made a GD entry, obtained permission,
arranged mediators, and informed the Clues Team. At 1620
hours, the suspect was intercepted while attempting to flee and
was identified as A3. On questioning, he confessed to possessing
MDMA in his motorcycle dicky. In the presence of mediators,
37.5 grams of MDMA was seized along with his motorcycle,
2
OnePlus and iPhone mobiles. He admitted procuring the drug
from A2 for sale to customers in Hyderabad. The contraband
was confirmed as MDMA by the Clues Team, sealed, and
deposited in the Malkhana. A case in Crime No. 79 of 2025
under Sec. 8(c) r/w 21(c), 29 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act‘) was registered. The
investigation revealed that A3 was in illicit possession of 37.5
grams of MDMA for monetary gain.
3. Heard Sri S. Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent – State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
allegations leveled against the petitioner are false and fabricated
and that no contraband material was found on him, nor was he
apprehended on the day the alleged vehicle was seized. He
further submitted that the only evidence against the petitioner
is the inadmissible confessional statement of other accused. He
contended that the police did not follow due process, and no
material evidence was seized from him. Therefore, he prayed the
Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal
petition.
3
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 the 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 opposed bail citing commercial quantity
weighing 37.5 grams of MDMA from the possession of A.3. 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
4quantity] 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. Given the
serious allegations against the petitioner, this Court is not
satisfied that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are
met. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court deems it fit to direct the petitioner to surrender
before the IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate cum IV
Additional Junior Civil Judge, at LB.Nagar, Rangareddy District,
and file a petition seeking regular bail. Further, on filing of such
5
petition, the trial Court is directed to consider the same as
expeditiously as possible and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law.
8. With the above directions, this Criminal Petition is
disposed of.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date :14.08.2025
Rds