AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Memorandum of Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.3 in connection with Crime No.366 of 2026 of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 22(c), 20(b)(ii)(B) and 27(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').
Heard Sri Ganga Srinadha Reddy Singam, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent – State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that PS Panjagutta officials took A-3 to A-6 to Park Hotel on 08.05.2026 at around 9:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. and forcefully made the occupants in Room No.5009 to vacate it and informed A-3 to A-6 to be in that room and instructed them to act like they are consuming the drugs. Later, the Police officials entered into the room acting like they are entering the room for the first time and apprehended the petitioner-A3 along with other accused from the room while they are acting like they are consuming the drugs. Petitioner-A3 is falsely implicated in the case and he has no criminal antecedents and he is arrested on 09.05.2026 at about 1:30 p.m. and sent to custody on 10.05.2026 at 4:25 p.m. Counsel further submits that Section 52 A compliance was not yet done and the alleged contraband is neither submitted in the Court nor sampling was done as contemplated in above said section. There is procedural irregularity in arresting the petitioner-Accused No.3 in support of his contention has relied on the decision in the case of Sk. Hussain and others vs. State of Orissa in CRLMC No.3703 of 2022 dated 19.05.2023 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, entire investigation is completed and prayed to enlarge the petitioner-A3 on bail.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that inventory application is made, it is still pending, A4 to A13 were issued notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS, there is no changed circumstance after the dismissal of earlier bail application on 13.07.2026.
The seized material in the case is 13 grams of MDMA which is a commercial quantity.
Petitioner-A3 has filed Crl.P.No.10020 of 2026 for grant of bail, this Court while referring to Section 37 of NDPS Act observed that petitioner-Accused No.3 has not complied with the rigor of Section 37 of NDPS Act and further observed that serious allegations are leveled against him, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Since inventory application is made by the respondent, which is pending consideration, furthermore petitioner-Accused No.3 fail to make out any changed circumstances after the dismissal of earlier Crl.P.No.10020 of 2026 dated 13.07.2026.
Long incarceration is not the criteria for grant of bail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of Telangana vs. Somanath Khara @ Mohesh @ Hedu1 has observed in Para Nos.6 and 7, which reads as under:
“6.In a case under the NDPS Act, long duration of custody or the completion of investigation are not sufficient factors for enlarging the accused on bail. The accused persons seeking bail have to overcome the rigors of Section 37 of the Act. The Court in passing the impugned order(s) has not considered the above aspect of the matter(s).
7.In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that the order(s) impugned can not be sustained in law and as such, are hereby set aside.”
In the case of State of Punjab vs. Balraj Singh @ Billa2 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in para nos.17, 18 and 20, which reads as under:
“17.Keeping in view the above expositions of law, we now proceed to examine the impugned order. The abovementioned decisions of this Court display the consistent view that when it comes to cases involving commercial quantity of narcotics, the mandatory requirements of Section 37 ought to be considered. It is not in dispute that the case at hand, involves commercial quantity. In such a scenario, consideration and reference to the twin conditions enumerated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act was mandatory. Upon a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that there has been no consideration at all by the High Court on the twin conditions. In such a scenario, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
18.Upon consideration of the case of the respondent against the twin conditions laid down in Section 37, we are of the view that no case for bail is made out. There are antecedents involving commission of offences of the very same nature under the NDPS Act, therefore it cannot be said that he is not likely to commit such an offence while on bail.
The decision cited by the petitioner counsel are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Hence, the same is not applicable, there are no merits in the present Criminal Petition and the same is lable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.