[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Amarnath Kumar @ Amaranad 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.3647 OF 2026
DATE :25.03.2026
Between :
Amarnath Kumar @ Amarnad & three others
... Petitioners/A.3 to A.6
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep., by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad
... Respondent/complainant
: ORDER :
This criminal petition is filed under Section 480 & 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioners
praying to enlarge them on bail in connection with Crime
No.129 of 2025 of Tekulapally Police Station, Bhadradri
Kothagudem District. The offences alleged against the
petitioners are under Sections 8(C) r/w.Section 20(b)(ii)(C), 27-A
and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').
2. The facts of the case are that on 24.05.2025 at about
12:55 hours, in front of Apostulula Christian Community
Church near Muthyalampadu X Road, Tekulapally, the
complainant along with his staff apprehended the accused while
they were transporting ganja in an Eicher vehicle bearing
No.HR-63-E-7315 and a car bearing No.HR-05-BK-6032. In the
presence of mediators, a total quantity of 697.350 kilograms of
ganja was seized. During interrogation, the accused confessed
that they had procured the said ganja from A.7 under the
instructions of A.8. Hence, case was registered against the
accused for the above offences.
3. Heard Sri Govardhan. C, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-
State.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is
that the petitioners are in jail from 24.05.2025 and trial is not
yet commenced. There is no independent evidence apart from
the alleged confessions directly linking the petitioners to the
financing or masterminding of the alleged ganja. The alleged
confession statements recorded by the police are inadmissible in
evidence. He further contended that petitioners have no prior
criminal antecedents. The petitioners herein are the
transporters and drivers engaged acting on the directions of the
main masterminds i.e., A.7 and A.8 and that they have been
released on bail. The petitioners are residents of Haryana and
they are the sole bread winners of their family. The investigation
is complete and charge sheet is also filed. In support of his
contentions, learned counsel relied on the judgments in Union
of India V Ram Samujh 1, Narcotics Control Bureau V Mohit
Agarwal 2 , Tofan Singh V State of Tamil Nadu 3 , Satender
Kumar Antil Vs CBI 4, Sanjay Chandra V CBI5, Frank Vitus V
Narcotics Control Bureau 6 , Ramesh Bhavan Rathod V
Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana 7 and Prathvi Raj Chauhan V
Union of India 8 . He further contended that petitioners are
ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this
Court and prayed to grant regular bail to the petitioners.
1 (1999) 9 SCC 429
2 (2023) 15 SCC 1
3 (2021)4 SCC 1
4 (2022) 10 SCC 51
5 (2012) 1 SCC 40
6 2023 SCC Online SC
7 (2021) 6 SCC 230
8 (2020) 4 SCC 727
5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor opposed bail contending that the petitioners are also
actively involved in this offence and that the contraband
involved is a huge commercial quantity. Further the petitioners
herein are residents of Haryana state and if they are granted
bail, they may abscond which may cause inconvenience to the
trial. Further, in view of rigor of Section 37 of NDPS Act,
petitioners are not entitled to bail and prayed to dismiss this
petition.
6. Considering the submissions made and the material
placed on record, this Court notes that the petitioners earlier
filed bail applications before this Court, which were dismissed
observing that Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that
offences involving commercial quantity are non‑bailable, and
bail can be granted only upon satisfaction of twin conditions,
reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and
unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. The present
petition does not disclose any changed circumstances from the
earlier bail applications. The submissions now advanced were
already considered in the earlier petitions. Considering the
gravity of offence, the commercial quantity involved, this Court
is not satisfied that the conditions for granting bail under
Section 37 are met. There are no merits in the present criminal
petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date :25.03.2026
Rds
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3647 OF 2026
DATE :25.03.2026
Rds
