Dismissed¶50

Prathikantam Bharath, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Dec 2025CRLP/15921/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail refused; NDPS Act bail petition dismissed; Section 37 NDPS commercial quantity bar; twin conditions not satisfied; no changed circumstances from earlier bail application; 513 grams ganja and 13.65 grams MDMA seized; Crime No.80 of 2025, P.S. Excise Uppal; Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(e), 22(c) NDPS Act; Section 42 NDPS compliance contention; Sections 480 & 483; Telangana High Court; K. Sujana J.; 17-12-2025; Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172; Dilip v State of M.P. [2007] 1 SCC 450.

What did the court decide?

Given the serious allegations against the petitioner, the Court was not satisfied that the conditions for granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were met. ¶46

Prathikantam Bharath, Vs The State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁸⁵ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 15921 OF 2025

¶7

Between

¶8

Prathikantam Bharath, S/o. Anantha Rama Rao @ Prathikantam Anantha Rama Rao, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Private Employee, R/o. Flat No 2107, 2nd Block, Janapriya Venue, Satyanagar, Kothapet, Ranga Reddy District

¶9

Petitioner/Accused No.1

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana,, Rep. by its Special Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature, at Hyderabad Through S.H.O. P.S. Excise Uppal.

¶12

...RespondenUcomplainant

¶13

Petition under Section 480 & 483 under Section 37 of NDPS Act, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/ accused No.1 , on b'ail in Cr.No.80 of 2025, on the file of The Station House Officer, Police Station Excise Uppal., for offences punishable under sections 8 (c) R/w 20 (b) (ii) (A) & 22 (c), of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act^'1985, and pass any other such order or orders as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the intelest of^justice.

¶14

This Petition coming on for hearing. upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri SYED JAWEED ABBAS NADEEM, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, Additional Pubfic Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent.

¶15

The Court made the following: OROER

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TEL INGANA}

¶17

AT HYDERABAD

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K.^{SU.J INA}

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION No.15921 OF 2O:Z;

17.t2.20.25

Between:

Prathikantam Bharath

Petitiont r /A. 1

And

The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Special Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, Through S.H.O, P.S.trxcise Uppal

¶26

. Respondenl

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This Criminal Petition is hled by the petit.r ner praying this Court to enlarge him on bail who is arraye I as accused No. 1 in Crime No.80 of 2025 of Excise Police St rtion, Uppal registered for the offences punishable under Sec,j rn 8(c) r/w. Section 20 (b) (ii) (e) & 22(c) of the Narcotir: Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDP S ActJ.

¶29

¶30

The facts of the case are that on O2.O8.2O25, upon receiving credible information, the AC Enforcement Ranga Reddy along rvith staff, conducted raid near Genius Grammar School, Kothapet, and found two persons coming^{on Honda CB} Shine Bike bearing No.TS O8 EU 1956 in^{suspicious manner} and stopped them ald on search the^{police found 513 gramsof} ganj a and 13.65 grams of MDMA and seized the^{samefrom their} possession. On enquiry, they revealed that they^{purchased the} dry ganj a from unknown person at^{Dhoolpet and MDMAfrom} A.3 and selling the same for higher^price to^{the needy people.} Hence, a casc was registered against^{the accusedfor the above} offences.

¶31

3., Heard Sri Syed Jaweed^{Abbas Nadeem, learned counsel} for petitioner, and Sri Arun^{KumarDoddla, learned Additional} Public Prosecutor appearing^{on behalf of the respondent-State.}

¶32

The contention of learned corlnsel^{for the petitioner is that} there is no compliance of Section 42^{of t}jre NDPS Act whichis} mandatory. There is no^{incriminatingevidenceagainst the} petitioner and there are no specific^{overt actsagainst the} petitioner herein. Petitioner is in^{jail ftom 02'08'2025'In} support of his contention^{he relied on the judgments in State of}

¶33

¶34

Punjab V Baldev Singhl, State of Kerala V Pral hu2, Dilip V State of M.P3, and prayed to grant bail to the petit rner.

¶35

On the other hand. learnecl Additional Put,l c Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the iearned c: lnsel for the pelilioner slaling that investigalion is in progress ind there are no changed circumstances from the earlier bail : pplication to the present petition. Hence, he prayed the Court rr dismiss this criminal petition.

¶36

Considering the submissions made by boll thc learned counsel and perusing the material available or rccord, it is noted that the contention of petitioner that the :ase is false, fictitious, and fabricated, the case was regist rred without following the due procedure. However, the Adct: ,ional Public Prosecutor opposes bail on the ground that the si ized quantity is a commercial quantity weighing about 513 g: Lms of ganja and 13.65 grams of MDMA. At this stage, it is peinent to note Section 37 of the NDPS Act. which reads as under

¶37

'37- Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Cor e of Crimrnal Procedure, 1973 (2 of l974l,-(a) very offence punishable under this Act shall be cogni; t cle;

¶38

i (1999) 6 SCC 172

¶39

z SLP (Crl) No.13937 of 2024 3 l2OO7l 1 SCC 45O

¶40

¶41

¶42

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for l[offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and. also for offences involving commercial quantrtyl shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless--

¶43

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for^suchrelease, and

¶44

(ii) ,,'here the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfred 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.

¶45

(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub section⁽¹⁾ are^{in additionto the} limitations under the Code of Criminal^Procedure, 1973 (2 of 197 4) or any other law^for the time^{being in} force on granting of bail."

¶46

In view thereof, Section 37 of the NDPS Act^{mandates that} 7 . , offences involving commercial^{quantitiesbe non-bailable,} requiring reasonable^grounds to^{believethe accusedis not guilty} and unlikely to commit further^{offences while on bail. Giventhe} serious allegations against the^{petitioner,this Court is not} satisfied that conditions for^{granting bail rinder Section 37 are} met. There are no changed^{circumstancesfrom the earlier bail} application to the^{present petition. Therefore,the criminal} petition lacks merit^{and the same is liable to be dismissed.}