Telangana High Court
Sayed Mustafa vs The State Of Telangana on 31 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3247 OF 2026
DATE :31.03.2026
Between :
Sayed Mustafa
... Petitioner/A.2
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep., by the Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad
... Respondent/complainant
: ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner praying this Court to enlarge him on bail who is arrayed as accused No.2 in COR No.306 of 2025 of Zaheerabad Prohibition and Excise Station, Sangareddy District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 8(c), 22(c). Sl.No.221 sub clause (vii) (a) and xxx(a) of Section 2 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'). -2-
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.10.2025 at about 4:10 PM, the SHO of Zaheerabad Police Station, along with the check-post team, conducted a vehicle check on NH-65 in front of the Prohibition & Excise Check Post at Chiragpally village, Zaheerabad Mandal, based on reliable information. During the operation, they intercepted a travels bus transporting 195 boxes of Nitrozepam tablets, each box containing 300 tablets, totaling 58,500 tablets, being illegally transported from Goa to Hyderabad. The driver of the bus, A1 - Vijay Kumar, was apprehended and remanded to judicial custody. During the course of investigation, the involvement of A2 was revealed, who was also found to be involved in another NDPS case registered under Sections 21(b) and 22(b) of the NDPS Act at Chowk Police Station, Kalaburagi. Based on his confession and CCTV footage, the police proceeded to Kalaburagi and on 14.10.2025 at about 3:00 PM, they arrested the petitioner from his residence with the assistance of the local Sub-Urban Police. Hence case was registered against the accused for the above offences.
3. Heard Sri Mohd. Muzafferullah Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
-3-
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the alleged confession of A.1, which does not contain any specific details identifying the petitioner. It is contended that such confession of a co-accused is inadmissible in evidence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh V State of Tamil Nadu 1. It is further submitted that the petitioner was implicated merely on suspicion on the ground of his involvement in another NDPS case, in which he is already on bail and regularly appearing before the concerned Court. The learned counsel also contends that the petitioner was illegally arrested from his residence in Karnataka without following due procedure and no contraband was recovered from his possession. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 14.10.2025. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and prayed to grant regular bail to the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail stating that the quantity involved is a huge commercial quantity and that investigation is at initial stage. If petitioner is released on bail, he may abscond as he is a 1 (2021)4 SCC 1 -4- resident of Karnataka State and would involve in similar offence. He further stated that petitioner is involved in another crime for the similar offence. However, as the contraband is a huge commercial quantity in view of rigor of Section 37 of NDPS Act, petitioner is not entitled to bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.
6. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, the petitioner herein is A.2 and he is remanded to judicial custody on 14.10.2025. The seized material in this case is a huge commercial quantity of 58,500 tablets of Nitrozepam tablets. That being so, it is relevant to extract 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---5-
(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, it is clear that 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.
8. Given the serious set of allegations leveled against the petitioner with regard to his involvement in seizure of contraband which is a commercial quantity, this Court is not satisfied that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are met. In view thereof, the criminal petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
-6-
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date :31.03.2026 Rds -7- THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3247 OF 2026 DATE : 31.03.2026 Rds