Telangana High Court
M. Srivatsun vs The State Of Telangana on 25 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3547 OF 2026
DATE :25.03.2026
Between :
M. Srivatsun
... Petitioner/A.3
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep., byits Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad.
... Respondent/
Complainant
: ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsha Sanhita, 2023 praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.3 in Crime No.125 of 2026 of Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 8(c) r/w.22 (c), 20(b) (ii) (A) and 29 2 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.01.2026 at about 12:30 hours, while the complainant was present at Kukatpally Police Station, he received credible information that a person aged about 18-20 years, wearing a Ferrari jacket, was transporting MDMA and OG Kush from Bangalore to Hyderabad and would reach Y-Junction, Kukatpally between 13:30 and 14:30 hours. After completing necessary formalities the police proceeded to the spot and at about 13:50 hours, the suspect carrying a black backpack was identified and apprehended. On enquiry, he disclosed his identity as Srivatsun M, aged 18 years, a student, and admitted that he was transporting contraband from Bangalore to Hyderabad for sale. As the place was crowded, he was shifted to the Traffic Police Outpost, Kukatpally, where, in the presence of mediators, a search of his bag was conducted, resulting in the recovery of one packet containing a white crystalline substance and another containing ganja. Upon testing, the substances were confirmed to be MDMA and cannabis (OG Kush), weighing 36.54 grams and 6.46 grams respectively. The contraband and the accused's mobile phone were seized, sealed, and documented under a 3 panchanama, the accused was informed of the grounds of arrest and taken into custody for offences under the NDPS Act. Hence, a case was registered against the accused for the above offences.
3. Heard Sri C.Damodar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri C.Ruthwik Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is an innocent 18 year old student who has been falsely implicated in the present case, though he has no connection with the alleged contraband. It is contended that the police have fabricated the entire incident, including the story that the petitioner transported drugs from Bangalore to Hyderabad, without verifying basic facts such as bus timings, thereby indicating that the case has been falsely created and the contraband was planted on him. It is further submitted that no drugs were actually seized from the petitioner, and the statement in the FIR regarding non-applicability of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is incorrect; the mandatory procedure was not 4 followed, rendering the alleged seizure doubtful. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner was at most suspected to be a consumer but has been falsely implicated as a trafficker by planting contraband of different quantities, and that the investigating officer, in collusion with other officials, created a false narrative to implicate him. It is also submitted that the petitioner's earlier bail application was dismissed, and he is currently in custody, which is severely affecting his education and future. Further the investigation is almost complete and he undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and shall abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed this Court to grant regular bail to the petitioner by allowing this petition.
5. The contention of learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that the petitioner was found in possession of 36.54 grams of MDMA and 64.6 grams of OG Kush, which is a commercial quantity. Further investigation is still pending. 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.3 and he is 5 remanded to judicial custody on 28.01.2026. The contraband seized in this case is a huge commercial quantity of 36.54 grams of MDMA and 64.6 grams of OG Kush. 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--
(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.6
(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.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 25.03.2026 Rds 7 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3547 OF 2026 Date: 25.03.2026 Rds