Telangana High Court
Krishnaram Chowdary vs The State Of Telangana on 28 January, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.16419 of 2024
ORDER:
The present Criminal Petition is filed praying this
Court to enlarge the petitioner who is arrayed as accused
No.3 in FIR.No.483 of 2024 before the Afzalgunj Police
Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 8(c) read with 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs
And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short 'NDPS')
on bail.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.10.2024 at
approximately 8:00 pm, the Sub-Inspector of Police from
Afzalgunj Police Station, Hyderabad, along with his team,
conducted a raid at CBS, near TGSRTC Cargo, Hyderabad,
based on credible information. During the raid, they
apprehended two individuals, A1 and A2, who were found to
be in suspicious circumstances. Upon searching A1 and A2,
the police seized a total of 106 grams of MDMA, a banned
narcotic substance, with 52 grams found on A1 and 54
grams on A2. The police then recorded the confessional
SKS,J
statements of A1 and A2, which revealed the involvement of
additional individuals, including A3/petitioner and other
accused, in the narcotics trade. The confessional statements
led to the registration of a criminal case against the
petitioner under the offences as mentioned above. Aggrieved
thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.
3. Heard Sri R.Thirupathi, learned counsel for petitioner,
and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent - State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
arrest of as the petitioner was solely based on the confession
statements of Accused Nos.1 and 2, which hold no
evidentiary value and that the petitioner had no contraband
in his possession and was not involved in the commission of
the crime. He further submitted that petitioner, a native of
Rajasthan, was arrested by the Chandanagar Police on
October 31, 2024, in connection with FIR No.1121/2024
and has been confined to the Central Prison, Cherlapally,
Medchal District, since then. While in prison, the petitioner
was produced before the II Additional Chief Judicial
SKS,J
Magistrate, Hyderabad, on a production transit warrant in
relation to FIR No. 483/2024, which
alleged involvement based on the confession statements of
Accused No. 1 and 2, despite no contraband being seized
from the petitioner. He contended that the police are
implicating the petitioner in similar offences based on
confessional statements, but the petitioner has no
connection to the alleged offence. He asserted that the bail
application of petitioner vide Crl.M.P.No.5637/2024 was
dismissed on 18.12.2024, solely due to the commercial
quantity of MDMA seized from Accused No. 1 and 2, and not
from the petitioner. He averred that the investigation is
complete, with all witness statements recorded, and that the
petitioner is willing to furnish sufficient sureties and abide
by any conditions for grant of bail. 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 106 grams of MDMA
was seized from A1 and A2 and that the same constitutes a
SKS,J
commercial quantity. He contended that the confessional
statements of A1 and A2 implicated A3 to A6, including the
petitioner, and that A4 to A6 are absconding and that the
investigation is ongoing. He averred that releasing the
petitioner on bail could lead to further offences, particularly
given his status as a native of Rajasthan State. Therefore,
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
the limited grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case, solely
basing upon the confessional statement of A1 and A2, and
that he is no way concerned with the alleged offence,
whereas, it is the specific stand of learned Additional Public
Prosecutor that 106 grams of MDMA was seized from A1
and A2 and that based on their confession, the petitioner
was implicated in the case for his alleged involvement in
trade of drugs.
SKS,J
7. At this stage, it is imperative to note that the
contraband seized by the Police in possession of A1 and A2
is a commercial quantity. 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
SKS,J
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."
8. 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. Further, in this context, the decision
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union
of India Vs. Mohd Nawaz Khan 1 assumes significance,
whereunder, it was held that the concept of possession is a
broad one and that the same cannot be limited to physical
(2021) 10 SCC 100
SKS,J
possession alone. The Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized
that when contraband is recovered from some individuals
and others are implicated in the crime, all factors, including
the connections between the individuals and the
surrounding circumstances, must be examined to determine
their role in the offence. It was further observed that these
aspects can only be decided during the course of trial, and
not at the stage of granting bail. That being so, it is made
clear that this Court cannot grant bail solely on the ground
that no contraband was recovered from the possession of
petitioner, when others have been found in possession of
commercial quantities of narcotics. The decision rendered in
the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2 was also
cited in support of this proposition. Given the serious set of
allegations leveled against the petitioner with regard to his
involvement in trade of drugs, this Court is not satisfied that
conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are met. That
apart, though learned counsel for petitioner relied on the
judgment rendered by this Court passed in Crl.P.No.3838 of
2024, it is noted that the same does not come to the aid of
petitioner as in the case thereof, the accused was in jail for
(2021) 4 SCC 1
SKS,J
nearly five months and considering the same, bail was
granted to him, whereas, in the case on hand, the petitioner
is in jail from the last 1½ months only. Therefore, 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: 28.01.2025
PT
