Telangana High Court
Amarnath Kumar @ Amaranad 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.3647 OF 2026
DATE :25.03.2026
Between :
Amarnath Kumar @ Amarnad & three others
... Petitioners/A.3 to A.6
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep., by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad
... Respondent/complainant
: ORDER :
This criminal petition is filed under Section 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioners praying to enlarge them on bail in connection with Crime No.129 of 2025 of Tekulapally Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 8(C) r/w.Section 20(b)(ii)(C), 27-A and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').
-2-
2. The facts of the case are that on 24.05.2025 at about 12:55 hours, in front of Apostulula Christian Community Church near Muthyalampadu X Road, Tekulapally, the complainant along with his staff apprehended the accused while they were transporting ganja in an Eicher vehicle bearing No.HR-63-E-7315 and a car bearing No.HR-05-BK-6032. In the presence of mediators, a total quantity of 697.350 kilograms of ganja was seized. During interrogation, the accused confessed that they had procured the said ganja from A.7 under the instructions of A.8. Hence, case was registered against the accused for the above offences.
3. Heard Sri Govardhan. C, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are in jail from 24.05.2025 and trial is not yet commenced. There is no independent evidence apart from the alleged confessions directly linking the petitioners to the financing or masterminding of the alleged ganja. The alleged confession statements recorded by the police are inadmissible in -3- evidence. He further contended that petitioners have no prior criminal antecedents. The petitioners herein are the transporters and drivers engaged acting on the directions of the main masterminds i.e., A.7 and A.8 and that they have been released on bail. The petitioners are residents of Haryana and they are the sole bread winners of their family. The investigation is complete and charge sheet is also filed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the judgments in Union of India V Ram Samujh 1, Narcotics Control Bureau V Mohit Agarwal 2 , Tofan Singh V State of Tamil Nadu 3 , Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI 4, Sanjay Chandra V CBI5, Frank Vitus V Narcotics Control Bureau 6 , Ramesh Bhavan Rathod V Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana 7 and Prathvi Raj Chauhan V Union of India 8 . He further contended that petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and prayed to grant regular bail to the petitioners. 1 (1999) 9 SCC 429 2 (2023) 15 SCC 1 3 (2021)4 SCC 1 4 (2022) 10 SCC 51 5 (2012) 1 SCC 40 6 2023 SCC Online SC 7 (2021) 6 SCC 230 8 (2020) 4 SCC 727 -4-
5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail contending that the petitioners are also actively involved in this offence and that the contraband involved is a huge commercial quantity. Further the petitioners herein are residents of Haryana state and if they are granted bail, they may abscond which may cause inconvenience to the trial. Further, in view of rigor of Section 37 of NDPS Act, petitioners are not entitled to bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.
6. Considering the submissions made and the material placed on record, this Court notes that the petitioners earlier filed bail applications before this Court, which were dismissed observing that Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that offences involving commercial quantity are non‑bailable, and bail can be granted only upon satisfaction of twin conditions, reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. The present petition does not disclose any changed circumstances from the earlier bail applications. The submissions now advanced were already considered in the earlier petitions. Considering the gravity of offence, the commercial quantity involved, this Court -5- is not satisfied that the conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are met. There are no merits in the present criminal petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date :25.03.2026 Rds -6- THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3647 OF 2026 DATE :25.03.2026 Rds