Dismissed¶¶43

Suleman Bin Abubakar @ Waseem v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC28 Feb 2025CRLP/2237/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail denied; NDPS commercial-quantity bar under S.37 applied; 12 grams MDMA seized (commercial quantity); Crime No. 195 of 2023, Dabeerpura PS Hyderabad; petitioner Suleman Bin Abubakar @ Waseem, Accused No. 33; offences under Ss. 8(c), 22(c), 27, 29 NDPS; petition under Ss. 480 & 483 BNSS; investigation incomplete; prime accused; Criminal Petition No. 2237 of 2025, Telangana HC, K. Sujana J, dismissed 28-02-2025; counsel alleged non-compliance with Ss. 42, 50, 52A, 57 NDPS and coerced confessions (not adjudicated).

What did the court decide?

The Court recorded that the police seized 12 grams of MDMA and that the seized contraband is commercial quantity. ¶¶29

Suleman Bin Abubakar @ Waseem Vs The State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, arrayed as Accused No. 33 in Crime No. 195 of 2023 (Dabeerpura Police Station, Hyderabad) for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 27 and 29 of the NDPS Act, should be enlarged on bail under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS. +1 more

¶¶18

Court's answer

The Court recorded that the police seized 12 grams of MDMA and that the seized contraband is commercial quantity.

¶¶29

Ratio / Principle

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 any offence while on bail.

¶¶38

Key takeaways

The Court was not satisfied that the conditions for granting bail under Section 37 NDPS were met; the investigation was not yet completed and the petitioner was the prime accused; therefore the criminal petition lacked merit and was liable to be dismissed.ratio¶¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under Ss. 480 & 483 BNSS for bail — Petitioner (Accused No. 33) in Crime No. 195 of 2023, Dabeerpura P.S., Hyderabad, registered for offences punishable under Ss. 8(c), 22(c), 27 and 29 NDPS Act — prosecution case of alleged possession/selling/consuming of MDMA on 26.10.2023 at about 0930 hours beside Meridian Function Hall lane, Chanchalguda — police seized 12 grams of MDMA, noted to be commercial quantity — S. 37 NDPS extracted: offences involving commercial quantity non-bailable unless the Public Prosecutor has been given opportunity to oppose and the court is satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused not guilty and unlikely to commit any offence while on bail — Court not satisfied that the S. 37 conditions were met; investigation incomplete; petitioner prime accused — Criminal Petition dismissed; miscellaneous applications, if any, stood closed. Counsel's pleas of non-compliance with Ss. 42, 50, 52A and 57 NDPS and inadmissibility of coerced co-accused confessional statements were not separately adjudicated. (K. Sujana J; 28-02-2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY. THE TWENW EIGHTH^{DAYOF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENry FIVE}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITI ON NO:223 7 0F 202s

¶6

Between:

¶7

Suleman Bin Abubakar @ Waseem,^{S/o. Abu Bakar Bin Ahmed,Agg3.2 years,Occ.} Business, R/o. H.No.8-3-228167811500-1 ,^{ShriramNagar,Yousufguda,Hyderabad.}

¶8

...Petitioner/Accused No.33

¶9

AND

¶10

The state of Telangana, Rep. by^{its Public Prosecutor,High courtBuildings,} Hyderabad through SHO, Dabeerpura,^Hyderabad

¶11

...RespondenUComplainant

¶12

Petition under Section 480 &^{483 of B.N.S.S.praying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the Memorandumof Grounds of criminal Petition, the} High court may be^pleased to^{enlarge the Petitioneron bail in crime No.} 19512023, Police Station^{Dabeerpura,vlllAdditionalchief Metropolitan} Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶13

This Petition coming on for^{hearing, upon perusing the Memorandumof} Grounds of Criminal Petition^{and upon hearing theargumentsof} sri Yemmiganur soma srinath^{Reddy, Advocatefor the Petitionerand sri syed} Yasar Mamoon, on behalf^{of the Respondent State.}

¶14

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶15

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICEK. SUJANA}

¶16

CRIMINAL PETITIOI{^{No'2237 of 2025}

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

The present Criminal^{Petition is filed prayingthis} Court to^{enlargethe petitioner who is arrayedas accused} No.33 in^{Crime No.195 of 2023 before DabeerpuraPolice} Station, Hyderabad,^{registeredfor the offencespunishable} under Sections^{8(c) read with 22(cl, 27 and 29 of the} Narcotic Drugs^{And Psychotropic SubstancesAct' 1985'' (for} short 'NDPS')^{on bail.}

¶19

Thc case of^{the prosecutionis with regardto alleged} illegal^{possession and selling/consumingof narcotic drug} and PsYchotroPic substance^l.e., MethylenedioxY Methamphetamine (MDMA) committed on 26.10.2023^at about 093O^hours beside Meridian^{FunctionHall lane,} Chanchalguda.^{The petitioner was implicatedin the said} case and^{was arrayed as accusedNo'33'Aggrieved thereby'} this Criminal^{Petition is filed'}

¶20

¶21

¶22

SKS.J CrLP.No.2237 of 2O2S

¶23

Heard Y.Some Srinath Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, iearned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent - State.

¶24

lrarned counscl for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case, with the investigation agency relying solely on coerced confessional statements of co-accused. He contended that the agency failed to follow mandatory procedures under .the NDPS Act, including non-compliance with Sections 42, 50, 52A, and 57, rendering the search, arrest, and seizure proceedings vitiated. He lamented that the confessional statements have no evidential value ald are inadmissible. Therefore, he prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

¶25

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the quartum of recovery of contraband constitutes commercial qualtity. He contended that releasing the petitioner on bail, could lead to

¶26

¶27

SKS,J Crl.P No.2237 of 2025

¶28

him committing similar offences,^{as such, prayedthe Court} to dismiss the criminal^petition.

¶29

Having regard to the rival submissions^{madeand on} going through the material placed on^{record,it is notedthat} the police seized 12 Grams of^{MDMA, and the said} contraband is commercial^{quantity. That beingso, itis} relevant to extract Section^{37 of the NDPS Act, which reads} as under:

¶30

"37. Offences to be cognizable and^non- bailable. -- (1) Notwithstanding^anything contained in the Code of^{Criminal Procedure,} 1973 (2 of D7al,--lal every^offence punishable under this Act shall^be cognizable;

¶31

(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^{quantityl sha-U} be released on bail or on his^{own bond} unless-

¶32

¶33

¶34

SIiS,J Crl.P.No.2237 of 2025

¶35

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

¶36

(ii) where the Pubtic 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 baii.

¶37

(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the Iimitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 197 4) or ary othcr law for the time being in force on granting of bail."

¶38

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. Given the serious set of allegations leveled

i I

SXS,J

against the^petitioner with regard to his involvernent in possession of l2 Grams of MDMA, this Court is not satisfied that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 :rre met. Further, the investigation in the case is not yet completed and the petitioner is prime accused in the case. Tirerefore, the criminal petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶43

Accordingly, this Criminal Petiti<>n is dismisscd.

¶44

Misr:ell:rneous applications, if any pending, shall

stand closed

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/- T', TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶50

SECTION OFFICER

¶51

1 The Vlll Additional Chief Metropol itan Magistrate, at ampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Station House Officer Dabee rpura Police Station Hyderabad 4J Two One CCCCs to to Sri. YePub mmrga lic Prosenucutor, High r Som a Srinath CourtRedfodyr , the^Advocate State [OPUCof Telangana at Hyderabad (.our) Two CD Co pres Y]R /PR ?+

¶52

HIGH COURT DATED:28102t2025

¶53

ORDER

¶54

CRLP.No.2237 of 2025

¶55

-rA
i-.* 1 H ci
I 7
.)
fi
t) 2 5 A P f, ( U25
l
("
D .,/'
F '/

¶56

DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION. Y,k @ ?^{</sup> 1-\}

Suleman Bin Abubakar @ Waseem v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suleman Bin Abubakar @ Waseem v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dasari Bhumaiah, Vs The State of Telangana

Babita Kumari Panigrahi Vs The State Of Telangana

Syed Shakeel Ahmed @ Shakeel Vs The State of Telangana

Fazal Kareem Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Sajid @ Sajju Vs The State of Telangana

Itharaju Gopal Vs The State of Telangana