Attapuram Bharath Reddy vs The State Of Telangana
2026 Latest Caselaw 23 Tel

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 23 Tel
Judgement Date : 25 March, 2026

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Attapuram Bharath Reddy 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.3627 OF 2026



                      DATE :25.03.2026

Between :

Attapuram Bharath Reddy

                             ...      Petitioner/A.2
                             And

The State of Telangana,
Through Public Prosecutor,
P.S. Madhapur,
High Court Buildings, Hyderabad
                             ... Respondent/complainant



                          : ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to

enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.2 in

Crime No.2282 of 2025 of Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad.

The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections

8(c) r/w.22(c), 27-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 26.11.2025, the

complainant received credible information that two persons

would come to the Monday Market area in Madhapur between

21:00 and 22:00 hours to sell MDMA to customers. Upon

receiving the information, he informed his superior officer and

obtained permission to verify the same. Thereafter, he secured

two panch witnesses and, at about 20:40 hours, proceeded to

the spot along with his staff and apprehended the accused

persons and seized 14 grams of MDMA, from the possession of

accused under the cover of a panchanama in the presence of

mediators. Based on the said seizure, the police registered the

present crime against the accused for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri Lakkireddy Lokesh Reddy, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy,

learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

respondent-State.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

petitioner is innocent and has no involvement in the alleged

offences, and that he has been falsely implicated in the case. It

is submitted that the petitioner was taken into custody by the

Madhapur SOT team on 26.11.2025 in the morning hours near

Panthangi Toll Gate and was kept in their custody till night

without being informed of the grounds of arrest and

subsequently handed over to the Madhapur Police at about

08:00 PM on 26.11.2025 and was produced before the

Magistrate only at about 07:00 PM on 27.11.2025, which is

beyond the statutory period of 24 hours, thereby violating his

fundamental rights. The learned counsel submits that all the

allegations made by the prosecution are false and fabricated.

The investigation in the case is stated to be substantially

completed and material witnesses have already been examined,

and charge sheet has not yet been filed. The petitioner

undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any

conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, it is prayed that the

petitioner be enlarged on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

vehemently opposed bail stating that the quantity involved is a

commercial quantity of 14 grams of MDMA and that

investigation is still pending. If petitioner is released on bail, he

may not cooperate with the investigation. The petitioner herein

is involved in three other crimes. 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 26.11.2025. The contraband

seized in this case is a huge commercial quantity of 14 grams of

MDMA. 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