Dismissed

Mohd Mateen v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Jul 2025CRLP/8113/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail petition by an accused in an NDPS drug-trafficking case involving seizure of commercial quantities of MDMA and cocaine. The court found specific allegations against the petitioner beyond co-accused confession, invoked Section 37 restrictions, and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mohd Mateen Vs The State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

I^s303 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:8113 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

MOHD MATEEN, S/O.SRI MOHD MASTAN, AGE.32 YEARS, OGCUPATION. Daily Wage Labour, R/O.H.N0.9-4-5717, HAKEEMPET, TOLICHOWKI, HYDERABAD

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO 8

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, through P.S. Cyberabad Narcotics- TG Anti-Narcotics Bureau, Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court, High Court Building, Hyderabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶13

Petition under Section 480 and 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 Petitioner/Accused No. 8 on regular bail in vide Crime No. 01 of 2025, Police Station. CYBERABAD NARCOTIC, TG Anti-Narcotics Bureau

¶14

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri CHANDRASHEKHAR YADAV S ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Syed Yasar Mamoon Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1.

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

THE [IONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SRI]I|NTVAS RAO

¶17

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8113 of -1021i

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 4ti0 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short 'B.,ISS') seeking bail to the pr:titioner/accused No. in Crime No. I of 2Ct25 of Cyberabad Narcotics Police Station, TG Anti-Narcotics Bureau, Hyderabad, registered fo r t ht; offence punishable under Section s 8(c), 22(b), 22(c), 27(A) and 2-t) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').

¶20

The crrs,: of the prosecution in brief is that on C'3.04.2025 at 09:00 hours. thc Inspector of Police, Cyberabad Narcotic Police Station, receivr:d credible information that a group of Nigerians residing at Flat No.301, AY Residency, Upperpally, tbjendra Nagar, Hyderabad, along with the petitioner running Fino Multipurpose Services at Ma akpet, were involved in illegal drug trafficking and were meeting at the said flat to settle financial transacti,cns. The racket was operated by Divine Ebuka Suzee @ Ebuka @ Emmanuel, based in Nigeria, who pn:viously stayed at Upparpally and was assisted by his brother Ezeonvili Franklin Uchenna @ Kelechi. Drugs were procured

¶21

¶22

¶23

from New Delhi through one Onuoha Blessing, who was arrested in 2024. Post-arrest, Ebuka fled to Nigeria and continued operations remotely. Indian and foreign bank accounts procured through accused No.3 were used for receiving drug pal.rnents, which were then routed to Nigeria through illegal means. On receiving this information, officers reached the premises at 12:00 hours, complied with legal procedures, and conducted surveillance. Accused Nos. I and 2 voluntarily admitted their involvement in selling MDMA and cocaine, receiving drugs via Ebuka, and collecting payments through accounts arranged by Mateen. A total of 52.29 grams of MDMA and 16.45 grams of cocaine were seized from Al and A'3, and the accused were arrested accordingly. Basing on the same, present crime was registered.

¶24

Heard Mr.S.Chandrashekhar Yadav, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

¶25

Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the offence and he was falsely implicated in the

¶26

above crime, basing on the confession statement given by the other accused and the voluntary statement recorded by the Investigating

¶27

¶28

Officer, during police custody and the said evidence is not permissible under law, particularly in view of Se,;tion 67 of the NDPS Act. lle further submitted that the alleged contraband i.e., 1 6.45 grams c,f cocaine and 52.29 grams of MDMA^was seized fiom the possessior ofthe other accused and the petitioner was not present at the alleged scene of offence at the time of seizure conducted by the investigatirg officer. He further submitted that even according to the press note issued by the investigating officer, neither the name of the petitioner nor the photograph of the petitioner is ther,: in the said press note or in the photographs published along with it. He also submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 05.04.2025 and has been injudicial custody and since 95 days, he is injudicial custody. He further sr,rbrnitted that the police had already takerL the petitioner into police ctrstody from24.05.2025 to 26.05.2025, during which the investigation w rs completed, except for the filing of thr: charge sheet, and no further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is n:quired. He further submittr:d that the petitioner is having small children and he is not having any other criminal antecedents and he shaLl abide by the conditions, whir:h are going to be imposed by this Court. and he is ready to coopcrzLte with the investigation.

¶29

¶30

¶31

In support of his contention, the leamed counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Surinder Kumar Khonna v. Intelligence OfJicer Directorate of Revenue Intelligencet and the Judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Phundreimayum Yas Khan v. State (GNCT of Delhi)2. Relying upon the said^judgments, learned counsel contended that basing on the confession statement given by the co-accused cannot be taken into consideration while implicating the other accused in the crime.

¶32

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner and other accused have committed grave offence and there are specific allegations against the petitioner and accused Nos.7 and 9 that they are SIM card vendors and they liaudulently and illegally activating additional SIM cards on the names of the customers, who approached them and selling the same pre-activated SIM cards to the Nigerians and eaming money illegally and the Police seized the contraband i.e., 16.45 grams of Cocaine and 52.29 grams of MDMA, which is commercial quantity. He further submitted that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court and

¶33

I crl.A.No.949 of 20 l8

¶34

2 Bail application No .1383 of 2022

¶35

¶36

filed Crl.P.No.6669 of 2025 for grant of bail and this Court^has dismissed tlre s;rid petition on 16.06.2025 and there are no changed circumstances, to seek grant of bail. He further submitted that the investigation is under progress and in view of Sectio,l 37 of the NDPS Acq the petitioner is not entitled for^grant of bail.

¶37

Having r:onsidered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and aftr:r perusal of the material available on recrrrd, it reveals that the police seized 16.45 grams of Cocaine ancl 52.29 grams of MDMA, and there are specific allegations against the petitioner to attract the prc,visions of the NDPS Act. As per the NDPS Act, 2 grams of cocaine is a srnall quantity and 100 grams is contrnercial quantity and 0.5 granrs of MDMA is a small quantity and l0 grams IS commercial quantity. Whereas, contraband seized in the present case is 16.45 grams ol' Cocaine ard 52.29 grams of MDMA, which is commercial quantity. The record further discloses that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court and filed Cr1.P.Itlo.6669 of 2025 for grant of bail and this Court dismissed the said petition on 16.06.2025. Sinilarly, accused No.7, against whorn very same allegations have bcen levelled, had approached this^(.l,curt and filed

¶38

¶39

(-l

¶40

Cr1.P.No.6575 of 2025 and this Court dismissed the said petition on 25.06.2025.

¶41

Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is submitted that the prosecution has allegedly implicated the petitioner solely on the basis of the confession statement of co-accused, which is not tenable under law. However, there are specific allegations against the petitioner and accused Nos.7 to 9, that they are SIM card vendors and they fraudulently and illegaily activating additional SIM cards on the names of the customers, who approached them and selling the same pre-activated SIM cards to the Nigerians and eaming money illegally and using it for drug sales to escape and dragnet of the Police. Hence, the contention that the petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the confession of co-accused is not sustainable in law. Whether the petitioner is, in fact, a SIM card vendor and whether he was involved in selling pre-activated SIM cards to Nigerian are matters that are to be revealed during the course of further investigation and cannot be adjudicated at this stage in the present petition.

¶42

¶43

I \

¶44

Insolar as the contention of the leamed counsel for the^petitioner is concemed, it is submitted that the petitioner has been in^judicial custody for m,rre than 95 days and is therefore entitled tc'be considered for grant of bzril. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Coun, in Narcotics Control Bureou Vs. Mohit Aggarwaf , specificatly held that the length ofthe period ofhis custody or the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and also held that humanitarian ground also cannot be a ground for grant of bail. Similarly, in Union of India v. Shiv Shaker Kesari, the Hon'ble lr.pex Court held at paragraph 13, rvhich reads as

¶45

follows:

¶46

"13. In the instant case, it appears that there was a statement reaorded under Se<ticn 67 of the Act. The respondent has taken a stand tllat the same was urder coercion. The acceptability of such a stand is a matter of trial. Additicnally, the High Court has not indicated any reason as lo why il was ol 'hc view that the contraband articles were not seized from the exclusive :o:;session of the accused-respondent."

¶47

It is alreall'stated supra, that in the case on hand, the Police

¶48

seized 16.45 grams of Cocaine and 52.29 grams of MDMA, which is

¶49

3 lzozz; ra scc ru+

commercial^quantity. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the investigation is under progress and charge sheet has not yet been filed.

¶54

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravity and seriousness of the offence, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner/accused No.8.

¶55