[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Sayed Mustafa vs The State Of Telangana on 31 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3247 OF 2026
DATE :31.03.2026
Between :
Sayed Mustafa
... Petitioner/A.2
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep., by the Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad
... Respondent/complainant
: ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner praying
this Court to enlarge him on bail who is arrayed as accused
No.2 in COR No.306 of 2025 of Zaheerabad Prohibition and
Excise Station, Sangareddy District. The offences alleged
against the petitioner are under Sections 8(c), 22(c). Sl.No.221
sub clause (vii) (a) and xxx(a) of Section 2 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.10.2025 at about
4:10 PM, the SHO of Zaheerabad Police Station, along with the
check-post team, conducted a vehicle check on NH-65 in front
of the Prohibition & Excise Check Post at Chiragpally village,
Zaheerabad Mandal, based on reliable information. During the
operation, they intercepted a travels bus transporting 195 boxes
of Nitrozepam tablets, each box containing 300 tablets, totaling
58,500 tablets, being illegally transported from Goa to
Hyderabad. The driver of the bus, A1 - Vijay Kumar, was
apprehended and remanded to judicial custody. During the
course of investigation, the involvement of A2 was revealed, who
was also found to be involved in another NDPS case registered
under Sections 21(b) and 22(b) of the NDPS Act at Chowk Police
Station, Kalaburagi. Based on his confession and CCTV footage,
the police proceeded to Kalaburagi and on 14.10.2025 at about
3:00 PM, they arrested the petitioner from his residence with
the assistance of the local Sub-Urban Police. Hence case was
registered against the accused for the above offences.
3. Heard Sri Mohd. Muzafferullah Khan, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent-State.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case solely
on the basis of the alleged confession of A.1, which does not
contain any specific details identifying the petitioner. It is
contended that such confession of a co-accused is inadmissible
in evidence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Tofan Singh V State of Tamil Nadu 1. It is
further submitted that the petitioner was implicated merely on
suspicion on the ground of his involvement in another NDPS
case, in which he is already on bail and regularly appearing
before the concerned Court. The learned counsel also contends
that the petitioner was illegally arrested from his residence in
Karnataka without following due procedure and no contraband
was recovered from his possession. The petitioner has been in
judicial custody since 14.10.2025. The petitioner undertakes to
abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and prayed to
grant regular bail to the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
opposed bail stating that the quantity involved is a huge
commercial quantity and that investigation is at initial stage. If
petitioner is released on bail, he may abscond as he is a
1 (2021)4 SCC 1
resident of Karnataka State and would involve in similar
offence. He further stated that petitioner is involved in another
crime for the similar offence. However, as the contraband is a
huge commercial quantity in view of rigor of Section 37 of NDPS
Act, petitioner is not entitled to bail and prayed to dismiss this
petition.
6. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel
and the material on record, the petitioner herein is A.2 and he is
remanded to judicial custody on 14.10.2025. The seized
material in this case is a huge commercial quantity of 58,500
tablets of Nitrozepam tablets. 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 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, 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.
8. Given the serious set of allegations leveled against the
petitioner with regard to his involvement in seizure of
contraband which is a commercial quantity, this Court is not
satisfied that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are
met. In view thereof, the criminal petition lacks merit and the
same is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date :31.03.2026
Rds
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3247 OF 2026
DATE : 31.03.2026
Rds
