Panugothu Sunil Alias Sunil Dheep vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 1256 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1256 Tel
Judgement Date : 23 January, 2025

Telangana High Court

Panugothu Sunil Alias Sunil Dheep vs The State Of Telangana on 23 January, 2025

       THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA


            CRIMINAL PETITION No.257 of 2025


ORAL ORDER:

Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner who is

arrayed as accused No.4 in Crime No.162 of 2024 of

Sujathanagar Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem, on bail,

the present Criminal Petition is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.11.2024, the

Sujathanagar Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem seized

the contraband as the accused persons are buying and selling

the contraband illegally to the general public in order to earn

money in an ease manner and also registered a case vide

Crime No.162 of 2024 of Sujathanagar Police Station,

Bhadradri Kothagudem, for the offences punishable under

Sections 8(C) read with 20b)(ii)(C), 27A, 29 of NDPS Act, 1985

and Section 78 of JJ Act.

3. Heard Sri R.Mangulal, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Syed Yasar Manoon,

learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of

the respondent-State.

SKS, J

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is innocent and he is no way concerned with the

alleged offences and material part of the investigation is

completed. He is secondly submitted that the petitioner has

been in judicial custody since 10.11.2024, causing undue

hardship to their family and that the allegations are false and

fabricated. He lastly submitted that previously, bail

application of the petitioner, vide Crl.M.P.No.1052 of 2024,

was dismissed by the Special Sessions Judge for the Trial of

Cases under NDPS Act - Cum - I Additional Sessions Judge,

Kothagudem, on 03.12.2024, without valid reasons. In

support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau v.

Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta 1. Therefore, he prayed the Court

to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal

petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner stating that the contraband seized 83.595 kgs of dry

ganja, which is in commercial quantity and also the

(2022) 12 Supreme Court Cases 633

SKS, J

investigation is not yet completed, therefore, granting bail to

the petitioner, at this stage, does not arise. Hence, he prayed

the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on

going through the material placed on record, it is noted that

previously the petitioner had filed Crl.P.No.15312 of 2024

before this Court, seeking the relief of grant of bail and the

same was dismissed vide order dated 26.12.2024 observing

that 'it is apparent that the contraband involved in this case is

83.595 kgs of dry ganja, which is in commercial quantity. It is

pertinent to note that major part of the investigation is not yet

completed. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of

the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

petitioner/accused No.5 is not entitled for the bail and the

Criminal petition is liable to be dismissed'. However, it is

noticed that there are no changed circumstances back then in

the earlier bail petition, and the present bail petition.

7. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narcotics

Control Bureau (supra), stating that when no recovery is

made from the accused, they are entitled to bail. However, the

SKS, J

remand report reveals that the Police recovered ganja from the

petitioner in the presence of witnesses i.e., L.Ws.13 and 14.

The allegations against the petitioner are that he knowingly

arranged a car for transporting ganja.

8. At this stage, it is pertinent to note 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.

(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,

SKS, J

1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail."

9. In view thereof, 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.

Given the serious allegations against the petitioner, this Court

is not satisfied that conditions for granting bail under Section

37 are met. As such, this Court is not inclined to grant the

relief as sought for, by the petitioner. There are no merits in

this Criminal Petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed.