Bitten Parichha, Vs Union of India through Si, Ncb, Hyderbad zone.

Petition under Section 480 & 483 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused in Crime No.02 of 2025 of NCB, Hyderabad bail on such condilion or conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

¶14

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of . Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M.AMARNATH, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Doddla Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent.

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

a

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEL/^NGANA

¶18

AT ITYDERABAI)

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJ6 NA

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.15773 of 2O2t3

¶21

17th DAY OF DE'CEMBER2O2S

Between:

Bitten Parichha

PE TITIONER

Union of India, through SI, NCB, Hyderabad Zote.

¶26

RE;I^,PONDENT

¶27

OR-DER

¶28

This Criminal Petition is firled praying tL.t Lr Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as iccrrsed in Crime No.2 of 2025 before the NCB, Hyderabad, r: gistered for the offence punishable under Section 8(c)^-e ad u,irl.r 2O(bXiiXC), 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and l' ,],chotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS ActJ.

¶29

2- The brief facts of the case revolve around se i ure of tolal 39 Kgs of Ganja. The petitioner was arrested on 25.07.2025 for Lhe offences as alleged.

-_

2

r)

Heard Sri M.Amarnath,^{learned counselfor petitioner'} and Sri Arun^{KumarDoddla, learnedAdditionalPublic} Prosecutor^{appearing on behalf of the respondent-State}

¶34

karned counsel^{for the petitioner submitted that the} petitioner is innocent^{of the alleged offences and has been} falsely implicated.^{He contended that in spite of petitioner} being no^{way connected with the atlegedoffence and there} being no^{direct evidenceto prove the possessionof contraband} with Petitioner,^{he islanguishinginjudicial custody'} Therefore,^{prayed this Court to allow this criminal petition'} granting the^{relief of bail to petitioner'}

¶35

On the other^{hand,learned Additional Public Prosecutor} opposed the^{submissions made by the learnedcounsel for the} petitioners stating^{that seized quantity of ganja is 39 Kgs} which falls^{under commercialquantity,therefore' averredthat} the question^{of granting bail to the petitioner doesnot arise'} Hence, he^{prayed the Courtto dismiss the criminal petition'}

¶36

Having regard^{to the rival submissions made and on} going through^{the material placedon record' it is noted that} the contention^{of learned counsel for petitioner is that the}

3

t

t

case against the^{petitioneris false and fictitious,whe r :as, the} learned Additional Public^{Prosecutor opposesthcretition,} citing that seized^{ganj a is commercialquantit5r.That I eing so,} at this stage, it is^{pertinentto note Section 37 of t I e NDPS} Act, which reads as under:

¶41

"37. Offences to be cognizable and^{non-bailable-}

¶42

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the^Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973⁽² of^{1974),--(a) evetr} offence punishable under this^{Act shatltx} cognDable;

¶43

(bl no person accused of an offence^{punishablefor} 1[offences under section 19 or section^{24 or sectior} 27A ar.d also for offences involving^commercia quantity] shall be released on bail or on^hisor".'t bond unless--

¶44

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been^givenarr opportunity to oppose tlle application for sucll release, and

¶45

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes^th: apptication, the court is satisfied^{that there ar3} reasonable grounds for believing that^{he isrr( t} guiltl of such offence and that he is not likely^tc commit arty offence while on bail.

¶46

(2) The timitations on granting of bail specified^Lr clause^(b) of sub-section⁽¹⁾ are in addition^{to tl (} limitations under the Code of Criminal^Procedur: 1973⁽² ol 197 4l or any other law^{for the timebeirrl} in force on granting of bail."

I I

4

E

From the above extracted portion, 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. Given the serious allegations against the petitioner, this Court is not satisfied that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are met. That apart, it is pertinent to note that as per the material on record, prima facie case is made against the petitioner.

¶51

In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there are no merits in this criminal^petition and the same is Iiable to be dismissed.

¶52

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶53

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶54

closed

¶55

sD/- s. ALLIKARJUNA ISTANT RE R //TRUE COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶56

I

¶57

'o'r.^{-n" ll Metropolitan Magistrate Court cum Special Judicial Magistrate of First} ntro I B^{u r-e a u Hvde ra b a d Zon a I U n it'}

¶58

, 5. ?LT3r?icn',,19fl o";Ae^{tsni. 311$ MerraAnilArH} ","e,, ".-co^{Advocate {oP9ilo"r,"} [opuc] i 5;; 6c^{io tn" Aoot. pueltc PRoSECUToRAc} 5. Two^{CD CoPies} GE/SA T<S

.J

HIGH COURT

DATED-.17t12t2025

ORDER

CRLP.No.15773 of 2025

¶64

DISMISSING THE CRLP WITHOUT COSTS