Telangana High Court
Ramavath Lalu vs The State Of Telangana on 7 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2599 of 2025
ORDER:
The present Criminal Petition is filed, seeking the Court
to enlarge the petitioner, on bail, who is arrayed as accused
No.3 in Crime No.712 of 2024 of Balanagar Police Station,
Cyberabad Commissionerate. The offences alleged against the
petitioner are under Sections 8 (c) r/w.20 (b) (ii) (C) and 29 of
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for
short ‘NDPS Act‘).
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 31.10.2024 on
reliable information that at about 17:00-17.30 hours, there
would be exchange of illegally trafficked prohibited drug
Hashish oil behind TGS RTC bus stop near Vimal theatre, the
police conducted raid and they found three persons aged
between 30 to 40 in suspicious manner. In the meanwhile
two persons came on Pulsor bike duly making the contraband
in one carry bag and when they were in conversion,
immediately they approached suspected persons and seized
the Hashish Oil from the possession of accused weighing
2
2.590 kgs. Basing on the complaint, the police registered the
case for the above offences against the accused.
3. Heard Sri B.Ramulu, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the
respondent-State.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is
that petitioner is innocent of the said offences and he has
nothing to do with the allegations and he is falsely implicated
in this case with a malafide intention. Petitioner was not in
possession of contraband and nothing was recovered from
him. Petitioner is in judicial custody since 01.11.2024 and
that material part of investigation is already completed except
filing of charge sheet. This is the third bail application. As
such prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
opposed bail stating that the seized quantity is 2.590 kgs of
Hashish oil which is a commercial quantity, as 1 kg itself is a
commercial quantity. In view of rigor of Section 37 of the
3
NDPS Act, petitioner is not entitled for bail. As such prayed to
dismiss this bail petition.
6. In support of his contention, 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.”
7. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel
and the material on record, the contraband seized in this case
is huge quantity. At this stage, it is pertinent to note Section
37 of the NDPS Act, and the same reads as under:
1
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3848
4“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.”
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
5
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. Further, as per the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau (supra),
wherein it is held that bail should not be granted if the
procedure is not followed, particularly with respect to the
statutory provisions of the NDPS Act. 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: 07.03.2025
Rds