Telangana High Court
Mohammed Mateen Siddiqui vs The State Of Telangana on 23 June, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6929 of 2025
ORDER:
This application is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short,
'BNSS') by the petitioner/accused No.3, seeking bail in
Crime No.01 of 2025 of Cyberabad Narcotic Police Station,
TGANB, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 8 (c), 22 (B), 22 (c), 27-A and 29 of the
Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for
short 'the NDPS Act').
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that a drug racket
operated by Nigerian nationals from AY Residency,
Upperpally, Hyderabad. Acting on credible information,
officials conducted surveillance and apprehended three
accused, who confessed to selling cocaine and MDMA under
the direction of Divine Ebuka Suzee, orchestrating
operations from Nigeria. The investigation revealed illicit
financial transactions routed through bank accounts procured
by accused No.3. Authorities seized 52.29 grams of MDMA
and 16.45 grams of cocaine. Basing on the same, Crime No.01 of
2025 was registered.
3. Heard Mr.Syed Hassain, learned counsel representing
Mr.Mohammed Aliuddin Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely
implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations
made in the complaint or in the remand case dairy, the alleged
contraband was seized from the possession of accused Nos.1 and 2
only. The petitioner/accused No.3 is doing foreign exchange
business. He further submitted that the Police without following the
mandatory procedure prescribed under the provisions of the NDPS
Act, seized the contraband. However, the petitioner was produced
before the concerned Magistrate on 03.04.2025 and the learned
Magistrate remanded the petitioner into judicial custody on
04.04.2025 and since then he was in judicial custody and the
material part of the investigation is completed. He further
submitted that the petitioner shall abide by the conditions, which are
going to be imposed by this Court, and he was ready to cooperative
with the investigation. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on
bail.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
petitioner/accused No.3 has committed grave offence under the
provisions of NDPS Act and 52.29 grams of MDMA and 16.45
grams of cocaine was seized and the investigation is under progress
and the petitioner was arrested on 04.04.2025. Hence, at this stage,
the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective
parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals
that the police seized the contraband i.e., 52.29 grams of MDMA
and 16.45 grams of cocaine, which is of commercial
quantity. In the remand case dairy the investigating officer
specifically mentioned the role of the petitioner/accused
No.3. The said contraband seized from the possession of
petitioner Nos.1 to 3. Even according to the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor the investigation is under
progress.
7. 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, 1973
(2 of 1974) or any other law for the
time being in force on granting of bail."
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.
8. It is also relevant to mention that the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif 1, it is held that in para No.39
which reads as follows:
"39. The upshot of the above discussion may be summarized as
under:
(i) The provisions of NDPS Act are required to be
interpreted keeping in mind the scheme, object and purpose
of the Act; as also the impact on the society as a whole. It
has to be interpreted literally and not liberally, which may
ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and Preamble of the
Act.
(ii) While considering the application for bail, the Court
must bear in mind the provisions of Section 37 of
the NDPS Act which are mandatory in nature. Recording of
findings as mandated in Section 37 is sine qua non is
1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3848
known for granting bail to the accused involved in the
offences under the NDPS Act.
(iii) The purpose of insertion of Section 52A laying down
the procedure for disposal of seized Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances, was to ensure the early disposal
of the seized contraband drugs and substances. It was
inserted in 1989 as one of the measures to implement and
to give effect to the International Conventions on the
Narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
(iv) Sub-section (2) of Section 52A lays down the
procedure as contemplated in sub-section (1) thereof, and
any lapse or delayed compliance thereof would be merely a
procedural irregularity which would neither entitle the
accused to be released on bail nor would vitiate the trial on
that ground alone.
(v) Any procedural irregularity or illegality found to have
been committed in conducting the search and seizure
during the course of investigation or thereafter, would by
itself not make the entire evidence collected during the
course of investigation, inadmissible. The Court would
have to consider all the circumstances and find out whether
any serious prejudice has been caused to the accused.
(vi) Any lapse or delay in compliance of Section 52A by
itself would neither vitiate the trial nor would entitle the
accused to be released on bail. The Court will have to
consider other circumstances and the other primary
evidence collected during the course of investigation, as
also the statutory presumption permissible under
Section 54 of the NDPS Act."
9. In the above said judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court overruled
the decision of the High Court on the ground that bail was granted to
the respondent therein solely basing upon non compliance with
Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which governs the disposal of seized
narcotic substances. The Court clarified that such non-compliance
does not automatically invalidate a trial or entitle the accused to bail,
emphasizing the necessity for the prosecution to establish the integrity
of evidence and the chain of custody. The ruling underscored that
procedural lapses must be evaluated within the broader context of the
case, reinforcing the principle that non-compliance with Section 52A
does not, by itself, warrant bail or invalidate the trial.
10. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the
case and gravity of offence, as well as the principle laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kashif (supra), this Court is not
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
11. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
_____________________________
J.SREENIVAS RAO
Date: 23.06.2025
lk
