Jangampally Venkat Goud vs Union Of India
2026 Latest Caselaw 368 Tel

Telangana High Court

Jangampally Venkat Goud vs Union Of India on 6 April, 2026

     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

                        AT HYDERABAD


        THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA


               CRIMINAL PETITION No.3956 of 2026


                       DATE: 06.04.2026


BETWEEN:


Jangampally Venkat Goud


                                     .....petitioner/accused No.1


                              And


Union of India, through Sub Inspector,

Narcotics Control Bureau, Hyderabad Zone,

Represented by Public Prosecutor/standing Counsel

                                    .....Respondent/complainant


                            ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to

enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.1

in Crime No.NCB.f.No.IV/4/31/Cr.No.03/2026/HYD, of

Narcotics Control Bureau, Hyderabad Zone, registered for the

SKS,J Crl.P.No.3956 of 2026

offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 22(c), 28

and 29 of NDPS Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 06.02.2026, based

on specific intelligence, officials of the Narcotics Control

Bureau (NCB), Hyderabad, intercepted two accused near

Ramalingeshwar Swamy Temple, Medchal, while they were

allegedly exchanging a psychotropic substance. Upon search,

1.878 kg of Alprazolam (commercial quantity) and

Rs.6,05,000/- were seized in the presence of independent

witnesses. The accused allegedly admitted involvement in

procurement and delivery of the contraband and were arrested

on 07.02.2026 for offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 22(c), 28

and 29 of the NDPS Act. Investigation is stated to be ongoing,

with possible involvement of other persons.

3. Heard Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Naraparaju Avaneesh,

learned Standing Cousnel for NCB appearing on behalf of the

respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated and no contraband was

SKS,J

recovered from him at the alleged place and that the petitioner

was illegally taken into custody on 05.02.2026, prior to the

alleged seizure, and nothing was found during the house

search. The mandatory procedures under Sections 42, 50 and

52A of the NDPS Act were not followed, and the case is a

concoction by the officials. He contended that the petitioner

has no criminal antecedents, the seized amount was not

connected to any offence. Therefore, he prayed the Court to

grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted

that the petitioner is involved in a grave offence involving

commercial quantity of contraband, attracting the rigours of

Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It is contended that the seizure

was conducted lawfully in the presence of independent

witnesses and duly documented, and the petitioner voluntarily

admitted his involvement. The investigation is still in progress

with possibility of a larger drug network, and there is a

likelihood of the petitioner absconding or tampering with

evidence if released on bail. He contended that the petitioner

has failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 37.

SKS,J

Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal

Petition.

6. This Court, considering submissions made by both the

learned counsel and reviewing the material available on

record, it is noted that the contention of the petitioner 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

weighing 1.878 kg of Alprazolam and the other cases are also

pending for the same offence. 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

SKS,J

(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 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. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 06.04.2026 SAI