Mukesh Dubey Mukeshkamalesh Dubey vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 4206 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4206 Tel
Judgement Date : 24 June, 2025

Telangana High Court

Mukesh Dubey Mukeshkamalesh Dubey vs The State Of Telangana on 24 June, 2025

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

        CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6856 and 6857 of 2025

COMMON ORDER:

Both the criminal petitions are arising out of Crime No.1212 of

2024. Hence, both the criminal petitions are heard together and

disposed of by this common order.

2. These Criminal Petitions are filed under Sections 480 and 483 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') seeking

bail to the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 6 in Crime No.1212 of 2024

on the file of Patancheru Police Station, Sangareddy, registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 22(C) and 29 of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short

'NDPS Act').

3. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 20.12.2024, at about

17:05 hrs, in front of AGI/Hindware Company, near Isnapur Village

gate, Patancheru Mandal, petitioners were caught with illegal

possession of MDMA weighing about 1000 grams in two plastic

covers. Basing on the same, a case was registered in Crime No.1212 of

2024.

4. Heard Mr.Ravuri Sai Sumanth, learned counsel for the

petitioners/accused No.3 and 6 and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners

have not committed alleged offence and basing on the confession

statement given by the other accused, they were falsely implicated in

the above crime and the contraband was seized from the other accused,

hence the provisions of the NDPS Act are not attracted against the

petitioners. He vehemently contended that the petitioners were arrested

on 20.12.2024 and sine then they are in judicial custody and even after

expiry of the statutory period of 180 days, the investigation officer has

not filed charge sheet and not filed any application seeking extension of

time for conducting investigation as required under Section 36(c) of the

NDPS Act and hence the petitioners are entitled for grant of statutory

bail. He further submitted that the petitioners are not having any

criminal antecedents and they are eking out their livelihood by doing

labour work and they are ready to cooperate with the investigation and

also ready to abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by

this Court.

5.1. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the

petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

M.Ravindran v. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue

Intelligence 1.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that

petitioners have committed grave offence under the provisions of

NDPS Act and 1000 grams of MDMA was seized from possession of

the petitioners and other accused, which is a commercial quantity. He

further submitted that the Investigating Officer, after completing the

investigation, filed the charge sheet on 21.04.2025, even before the

expiry of the statutory period of 180 days. Hence, the petitioners are

not entitled for grant of statutory bail.

7. By way of reply, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that

once charge sheet has been filed by the investigation officer, the

question of interference with the investigation and influencing the

witness by the petitioners does not arise. He further submitted that the

petitioners are ready to appear before the concerned Court on each and

every adjournment and also abide by the conditions which are going to

be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for grant of bail.

S.L.P. (Criminal) No.2333 of 2020

8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective

parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals

that the alleged contraband namely 1000 grams of MDMA is

commercial quantity and there are specific allegations against the

petitioners to attract the provisions of the NDPS Act. As per the NDPS

Act, 0.5 grams of MDMA is small quantity and 10 grams is a

commercial quantity, whereas, the contraband seized in the present case

is 1000 grams of MDMA, which is more than commercial quantity.

9. During the course of hearing, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

placed a copy of the charge sheet filed by the investigation officer on

21.04.2025 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge,

at Sangareddy. The said charge sheet reveals that the investigation

officer filed it even before the expiry of the statutory period of 180 days

from the date of the petitioner's arrest, i.e., 20.12.2024. Hence, the

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are

entitled for grant of statutory bail is not tenable under law.

10. It is already stated supra that the petitioners have committed

grave offence and the contraband seized by the Police is 1000 grams of

MDMA, which is more than commercial quantity. 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."

11. 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.

12. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for

petitioners is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the

case on hand the sole ground that the investigation officer after

conducting investigation filed charge sheet, within the stipulated

time, i.e., before expiry statutory period of 180 days.

13. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case

and the gravity and seriousness of the offence, this Court is of the

considered view that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the