[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Katta Chintu vs The State Of Telangana on 26 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2645 OF 2026
DATE :26.03.2026
Between :
Katta Chintu
... Petitioner/A.2
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep., by Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad
(through SHO, Dundigal Police Station,
Dundigal Division, Medchal-Cyberabad Commissionerate)
... 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.2
in Crime No.09 of 2026 of Dundigal Police Station, Medchal-
Malkajgiri District. The offences alleged against the petitioner
are under Sections 8(c) r/w.20 (b)(ii) (C) 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 03.01.2026 at about
11:00 hours, while the Sub-Inspector of Police, Dundigal Police
Station, was on duty, he received credible information that three
persons were illegally selling hashish oil at H.No.5-59,
Vivekananda Nagar Colony, D. Pochampally, Dundigal. The said
information was reduced into writing and duly informed to the
superior officer under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, and after
obtaining necessary permission and arranging mediators and
clues team, a raid was conducted at about 13:15 hours. On
reaching the premises, the police found one person, namely A-1
Sunil Kumar, who, upon questioning, led them to another room
where A-2 Katta Chintu and A-3 Sonji Suryakanth were found
preparing small containers of hashish oil for sale. During the
search, 261 small containers containing hashish oil, 60 empty
containers, and related packing materials were seized. On
enquiry, the accused persons disclosed that they had jointly
purchased about 1400 grams of hashish oil from one Sadhuram
of Odisha for Rs.30,000/- with an agreement to pay the
remaining amount after sale, and were selling the same to
customers at a higher price to earn illegal profit. Hence, case
was registered against the accused for the above offences.
3. Heard Sri P.Vikas Raj, 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 innocent of the said allegations and he has been
falsely implicated in this case. No contraband was seized from
the possession of petitioner and that he is neither owner nor
tenant of the alleged premises. He further contended that
initially 733 grams of Hashish oil was found in A.1's house and
thereafter the police included the packing material due to which
the quantity is increased to show it as commercial quantity. He
further contended that there are procedural irregularities and
non compliance of mandatory provisions under NDPS Act.
Petitioner is in judicial custody since 03.01.2026 and that he
had two minor children who are dependent on him. He further
submitted that petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions
that may be imposed by this Court and prayed to enlarge the
petitioner on bail by allowing this criminal petition.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
opposed bail contending that the quantity involved in this case
is a huge commercial quantity and that petitioner is previously
involved in two other similar offences and that he is a habitual
offender. He also contended that if petitioner is granted bail he
may commit similar offences. Further investigation is still
pending and the contraband involved 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 03.01.2026. The contraband
seized in this case is a huge commercial quantity of 1305 grams
of Hashish oil. 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: 26.03.2026
Rds
