Telangana High Court
Iliyas Gouse @ Sayyed@ vs The State Of Telangana on 26 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2291 OF 2026
DATE :26.03.2026
Between :
Iliyas Gouse @ Sayyed & another
... Petitioners/A.2 & A.3
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep., by the Public Prosecutor,
High Court at Hyderabad
... Respondent/complainant
: ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners praying this Court to enlarge them on bail who are arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.580 of 2025 of Ramachandrapuram Police Station, Cyberabad. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 8(c) r/w.20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').
-2-
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.09.2025 at about 12:00 hours, while the complainant was on duty at the Police Station, he received reliable information that two persons were transporting prohibited contraband, namely Ganja, from the Agency area of Orissa to Maharashtra in a Honda City car bearing No. MH 02 BP 4385, and that they would pass through the ICRISAT toll gate on NH-65 Road at about 13:30 hours. The said information was entered in the General Diary, and the superior officer was informed under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act. As per instructions, mediators were secured and thereafter he along with his team proceeded to the spot and intercepted the said vehicle at about 13:50 hours. Upon search, 83 packets containing Ganja, each weighing approximately 2 kg, totaling 166 kg, were found concealed in the vehicle. The occupants of the vehicle, namely Iliyas Ghouse Sayyed and Shahrukh Khan, were apprehended. They were informed of their rights under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which they declined. Upon verification, the seized substance was confirmed to be Ganja. During interrogation, both accused confessed to procuring the contraband from Orissa and transporting it to Mumbai for illegal sale. The seizure proceedings were conducted in the presence of mediators, duly documented, and the contraband -3- along with the vehicle was seized. Hence, case was registered against the accused for the above offences.
3. Heard Sri D. Suryanarayana, 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 mandatory provisions under Sections 41(2), 42 and 57 of NDPS Act are not followed and that there is delay in drawing the samples before the Magistrate. That the petitioners were never in conscious possession of the contraband and that they are falsely implicated in this case. The petitioners are in jail from 21.09.2025 and they would undertake to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed this Court to grant regular bail to the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail stating that the quantity involved is a huge commercial quantity of 166 kgs of Ganja and that investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed. If petitioners are released on bail, they may not cooperate with the trial as they -4- belong to Maharashtra State. As the contraband is a huge commercial quantity 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 by both the counsel and the material on record, the petitioners herein are A.2 and A.3 and they are remanded to judicial custody on 21.09.2025. The contraband seized in this case is a huge commercial quantity of 166 kgs of ganja. 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 -5-
(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 petitioners with regard to their 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 :26.03.2026 Rds