[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
M. Srivatsun vs The State Of Telangana on 25 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3547 OF 2026
DATE :25.03.2026
Between :
M. Srivatsun
... Petitioner/A.3
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep., byits Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad.
... Respondent/
Complainant
: ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 480 & 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsha Sanhita, 2023 praying this Court
to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.3
in Crime No.125 of 2026 of Kukatpally Police Station,
Cyberabad Commissionerate. The offences alleged against the
petitioner are under Sections 8(c) r/w.22 (c), 20(b) (ii) (A) and 29
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(for short 'NDPS Act').
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.01.2026 at about
12:30 hours, while the complainant was present at Kukatpally
Police Station, he received credible information that a person
aged about 18-20 years, wearing a Ferrari jacket, was
transporting MDMA and OG Kush from Bangalore to Hyderabad
and would reach Y-Junction, Kukatpally between 13:30 and
14:30 hours. After completing necessary formalities the police
proceeded to the spot and at about 13:50 hours, the suspect
carrying a black backpack was identified and apprehended. On
enquiry, he disclosed his identity as Srivatsun M, aged 18 years,
a student, and admitted that he was transporting contraband
from Bangalore to Hyderabad for sale. As the place was
crowded, he was shifted to the Traffic Police Outpost,
Kukatpally, where, in the presence of mediators, a search of his
bag was conducted, resulting in the recovery of one packet
containing a white crystalline substance and another containing
ganja. Upon testing, the substances were confirmed to be
MDMA and cannabis (OG Kush), weighing 36.54 grams and
6.46 grams respectively. The contraband and the accused's
mobile phone were seized, sealed, and documented under a
panchanama, the accused was informed of the grounds of arrest
and taken into custody for offences under the NDPS Act.
Hence, a case was registered against the accused for the above
offences.
3. Heard Sri C.Damodar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Sri C.Ruthwik Reddy, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
respondent - State.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that
petitioner is an innocent 18 year old student who has been
falsely implicated in the present case, though he has no
connection with the alleged contraband. It is contended that the
police have fabricated the entire incident, including the story
that the petitioner transported drugs from Bangalore to
Hyderabad, without verifying basic facts such as bus timings,
thereby indicating that the case has been falsely created and the
contraband was planted on him. It is further submitted that no
drugs were actually seized from the petitioner, and the
statement in the FIR regarding non-applicability of Section 50 of
the NDPS Act is incorrect; the mandatory procedure was not
followed, rendering the alleged seizure doubtful. The learned
counsel further contended that the petitioner was at most
suspected to be a consumer but has been falsely implicated as a
trafficker by planting contraband of different quantities, and
that the investigating officer, in collusion with other officials,
created a false narrative to implicate him. It is also submitted
that the petitioner's earlier bail application was dismissed, and
he is currently in custody, which is severely affecting his
education and future. Further the investigation is almost
complete and he undertakes to cooperate with the investigation
and shall abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this
Court. Hence, prayed this Court to grant regular bail to the
petitioner by allowing this petition.
5. The contention of learned Additional Public Prosecutor is
that the petitioner was found in possession of 36.54 grams of
MDMA and 64.6 grams of OG Kush, which is a commercial
quantity. Further investigation is still pending. 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.3 and he is
remanded to judicial custody on 28.01.2026. The contraband
seized in this case is a huge commercial quantity of 36.54
grams of MDMA and 64.6 grams of OG Kush. 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 applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 25.03.2026
Rds
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3547 OF 2026
Date: 25.03.2026
Rds
