[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Iliyas Gouse @ Sayyed@ 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.2291 OF 2026
DATE :26.03.2026
Between :
Iliyas Gouse @ Sayyed & another
... Petitioners/A.2 & A.3
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep., by the Public Prosecutor,
High Court at Hyderabad
... Respondent/complainant
: ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners praying
this Court to enlarge them on bail who are arrayed as accused
Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.580 of 2025 of Ramachandrapuram
Police Station, Cyberabad. The offences alleged against the
petitioners are under Sections 8(c) r/w.20 (b) (ii) (C) of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for
short 'NDPS Act').
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.09.2025 at about
12:00 hours, while the complainant was on duty at the Police
Station, he received reliable information that two persons were
transporting prohibited contraband, namely Ganja, from the
Agency area of Orissa to Maharashtra in a Honda City car
bearing No. MH 02 BP 4385, and that they would pass through
the ICRISAT toll gate on NH-65 Road at about 13:30 hours. The
said information was entered in the General Diary, and the
superior officer was informed under Section 42(2) of the NDPS
Act. As per instructions, mediators were secured and thereafter
he along with his team proceeded to the spot and intercepted
the said vehicle at about 13:50 hours. Upon search, 83 packets
containing Ganja, each weighing approximately 2 kg, totaling
166 kg, were found concealed in the vehicle. The occupants of
the vehicle, namely Iliyas Ghouse Sayyed and Shahrukh Khan,
were apprehended. They were informed of their rights under
Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which they declined. Upon
verification, the seized substance was confirmed to be Ganja.
During interrogation, both accused confessed to procuring the
contraband from Orissa and transporting it to Mumbai for
illegal sale. The seizure proceedings were conducted in the
presence of mediators, duly documented, and the contraband
along with the vehicle was seized. Hence, case was registered
against the accused for the above offences.
3. Heard Sri D. Suryanarayana, 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 mandatory provisions under Sections 41(2), 42 and 57 of
NDPS Act are not followed and that there is delay in drawing the
samples before the Magistrate. That the petitioners were never
in conscious possession of the contraband and that they are
falsely implicated in this case. The petitioners are in jail from
21.09.2025 and they would undertake to abide by any
conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed
this Court to grant regular bail to the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
opposed bail stating that the quantity involved is a huge
commercial quantity of 166 kgs of Ganja and that investigation
is completed and charge sheet is also filed. If petitioners are
released on bail, they may not cooperate with the trial as they
belong to Maharashtra State. As the contraband is a huge
commercial quantity 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 by both the counsel
and the material on record, the petitioners herein are A.2 and
A.3 and they are remanded to judicial custody on 21.09.2025.
The contraband seized in this case is a huge commercial
quantity of 166 kgs of ganja. 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
petitioners with regard to their 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 :26.03.2026
Rds
