Telangana High Court
Anand Ashok Adhagale vs The Union Of India on 15 September, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11138 OF 2025
ORDER:
The present Criminal Petition is filed praying this
Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail, who is arrayed as
accused No.1 in Cr.NCB F.No.48/1/1/2024/NCB/HZU of
Kukatpally Police Station, registered for the offences
under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(c), Sections
27A, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.04.2024,
specific information was received by the de-facto
complainant and the petitioner-accused and other
accused were apprehended and also 721.42 kgs of ganja
was seized. Basing on the same, the above said crime was
registered.
3. Heard Sri P.Vikas Raj, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Sri V.T.Kalyan, learned Standing
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.11138 of 2025
Counsel of Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on
behalf of the respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly submitted
that though the petitioner/accused No.1 is only a driver
of the vehicle, he is falsely implicated in the present
crime solely based on the confession statement of
accused No.2. He secondly submitted that the petitioner
was in judicial custody since 12.04.2024, causing undue
hardship to his family. He thirdly submitted that
investigation has been completed and charge sheet filed,
therefore, there is no question of tampering with the
evidence and there is no chance of conclusion of trial in
the near future. He fourthly submitted that as per the
judgment of the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v.
CBI 1 , the accused cannot be kept in jail in the case of
prolonged period of trial. He lastly submitted that the
petitioner is taking care of his girl child and his mother
(2022) 10 SCC 51
SKS,J
and prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition by
granting regular bail to the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel
opposed the bail, stating that a huge commercial quantity
was seized from the petitioner. If the petitioner is released
on bail, he may abscond and commit similar offences.
There are no reasonable grounds in this case to conclude
that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence. The
investigation is under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and
hence the petitioner is not entitled to bail. He also
submitted that the petitioner cannot be released merely
on the ground of delay and Section 436-A of the Cr.P.C.,
is not applicable in this case as it is only one of the
mechanisms under law and not an absolute ground for
release. In the instant case, the seized contraband is a
commercial quantity and he is in jail for not less than five
years, thus, he cannot be released on bail according to
Section 436-A of the Cr.P.C. Hence, he prayed the Court
dismiss the Criminal Petition.
SKS,J
6. Considering the submissions of both the parties and
the material on record, the quantity involved in this case
is 721.42 Kgs of Ganja. Though it is stated that the
petitioner was not aware about the Ganja in the said
vehicle, whether he is in conscious possession or not
cannot be decided at this stage. However, it is pertinent
to refer to 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."
7. 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
SKS,J
unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. Given the
serious allegations against the petitioner, this Court is not satisfied
that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are met.
Therefore, the criminal petition lacks merit and the same is liable
to be dismissed.
8. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed, the trial
Court is directed to conclude the trial at the earliest.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 15.09.2025
fm
