Bandi Raju Babu Raju vs The State Of Telangana,
2025 Latest Caselaw 2840 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 2840 Tel
Judgement Date : 6 March, 2025

Telangana High Court

Bandi Raju Babu Raju vs The State Of Telangana, on 6 March, 2025

        THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA


            CRIMINAL PETITION No.2516 of 2025


ORDER:

The present Criminal Petition is filed, seeking the Court to

enlarge the petitioners, on bail, who are arrayed as accused

Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.61 of 2025 of Hayathnagar Police

Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate. The offences alleged

against the petitioners are under Sections 8 (c) r/w. 22 (b)(ii)(c),

29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

(for short 'NDPS Act').

2. The case of the prosecution is that On January 12, 2025,

at 22:30 hours, Sub-Inspector of Police, Hayathnagar PS,

received credible information about a Toyota Innova car carrying

ganja. The police intercepted the vehicle and apprehended two

suspects, Bandi Raju Babu and Talati Durga Prasad, while one

person, Pangi Sunil Kumar, escaped. Upon searching the

vehicle, 28.78 kg of ganja was seized, along with two cell phones

and the vehicle itself. The suspects confessed to transporting

and selling ganja, revealing that they had purchased it from

Lokon in Odisha and sold some of it in Hyderabad. The police

recorded the confessions and seized the evidence, and the

suspects were taken into custody. Further investigation is

needed to apprehend the other accused individuals.

3. Heard Sri G. Anil Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bail

application of the petitioner should be granted due to several

irregularities in the case of the prosecution. Specifically, the

sampling of the seized substance was not done under the

supervision of a magistrate as required by Section 52-A of the

NDPS Act. He further submitted that the remand case diary

does not mention the preparation of an inventory of the seized

substance or sending it for chemical examination and that the

contraband was not seized in the presence of gazetted officers as

required by Section 50 of the Act. He contended that the

petitioner was falsely implicated, has no criminal antecedents,

and is willing to cooperate with the investigation. In support of

his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon

the judgment of this Court in Criminal Petition No.4428 of

2022. 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 bail on the ground that the seized contraband is

commercial quantity and petitioner is remanded only on

30.01.2025. Investigation is not yet completed and prayed to

dismiss this application.

6. In support of his submission, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif 1 , wherein in

paragraph No.40, it is held as under:

"40. The impugned order based on the inferences and surmises, in utter disregard of the statutory provision of the Act and in utter disregard of the mandate contained in Section 37 of the Act, and granting bail to the accused merely on the ground that the compliance of Section 52A was not done within reasonable time, is highly erroneous and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Since, the High Court has not considered the application of the respondent on merits and has also not considered the mandatory requirement under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act, we deem it appropriate to remand the case to the High Court for deciding the bail application of the respondent afresh on merits and in accordance with law."

2024 SCC OnLine SC 3848

7. This Court, considering submissions made by both the

learned counsel and reviewing the record, it is noted that the

contention of the petitioners that the case is false, fictitious, and

fabricated, the case was registered without following the due

procedure. However, the Additional Public Prosecutor opposes

bail citing commercial quantity approximately 28.78 kgs of

ganja. At this stage, it is pertinent to note Section 37 of the

NDPS Act, and the same 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."

8. In view thereof, Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that

offences involving commercial quantities be non-bailable,

requiring reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not

guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. In

the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, this Court is

not satisfied that conditions for granting bail under Section 37

are met. That apart, even as per the judgment rendered by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narcotics Control

Bureau (supra), it was made clear that bail cannot not be

granted to the accused if the due procedure, particularly, with

respect to the statutory provisions of the Act, are not followed.

Therefore, the Criminal Petition lacks merit and the same is