Mallu Venugopal Reddy, vs The State Of Telangana,
2025 Latest Caselaw 2875 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 2875 Tel
Judgement Date : 7 March, 2025

Telangana High Court

Mallu Venugopal Reddy, vs The State Of Telangana, on 7 March, 2025

      THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA


            CRIMINAL PETITION No.2588 of 2025


ORDER:

The present Criminal Petition is filed praying this

Court to enlarge the petitioner who is arrayed as accused

No.3 in Crime No.348 of 2024 before Bhongir Rural

(Rachakonda) Police Station, Yadadri Bhondir, registered for

the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with

20(b)(ii)(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985, (for short 'NDPS') on bail.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on

October 29, 2024, at 12:00 hours, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Bhongir Rural PS, along with his team, conducted a vehicle

check near Nagireddypally Chowrastha on the Bhongir to

Chityal road. At 13:30 hours, they intercepted two

suspicious cars, one behind the other, coming from Bhongir.

Upon questioning, the occupants disclosed their names and

voluntarily confessed to transporting ganja in their MG

Hector car. Consequently, 35.50 kg of ganja was seized from

the possession of petitioner and other accused. The

SKS,J

petitioner was implicated in the said case and was arrayed

as accused No.3. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is

filed.

3. Heard Sri Umesh Singh, 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

there is no prima facie evidence to establish the involvement

of petitioner in escorting or transporting ganja, and the

allegations made by prosecution are based solely on the

confession of co-accused, which is inadmissible as evidence.

He asserted that the petitioner is innocent, denies all

allegations, and has been falsely implicated by the

investigating agency, and that the role of the petitioner in

the alleged offence is unclear, and the FIR does not reveal

any prima facie case against him. He asserted that the

petitioner is a law-abiding citizen, willing to cooperate with

the investigating agency, and belongs to a respectable poor

family. In support of his contentions, he relied on the

judgment rendered in the case of Toofan Singh v. State of

SKS,J

Tamil Nadu 1 , and prayed this 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 quantum of

recovery of contraband constitutes commercial quantity. He

contended that releasing the petitioner on bail, could lead to

him committing similar offences, as such, prayed the Court

to dismiss the criminal petition.

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 2 ,

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

2021 4 SCC 1

2024 SCC OnLine SC 3848

SKS,J

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."

7. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on

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

the police seized 35.50 kg of ganja, and the said contraband

is huge 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

SKS,J

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.

SKS,J

(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. Given the serious set of allegations leveled