Dismissed¶43

Mohammed Qasimuddin v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Oct 2025CRLP/9824/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail refused under Section 37 NDPS Act - commercial quantity of MDMA (18.31 grams) - Crime No.553 of 2025, L.B. Nagar Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate - accused Mohammed Qasimuddin (A-1) - petition under Sections 480 & 483 BNSS - Telangana High Court (K. Sujana, J.), 07.10.2025 - twin conditions of Section 37 held not satisfied - Criminal Petition dismissed - no precedents cited or discussed.

What did the court decide?

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. ¶42

Mohammed Qasimuddin 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.1 in Crime No.553 of 2025 of L.B. Nagar Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, should be enlarged on bail under Sections 480 & 483 of BNSS. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

The criminal petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed; accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

¶42

Key takeaways

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.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No.9824 of 2025 (High Court for the State of Telangana, K. Sujana, J., 07.10.2025): Petition under Sections 480 & 483 of BNSS by Mohammed Qasimuddin (Accused No.1) seeking enlargement on bail in Crime No.553 of 2025 of L.B. Nagar Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, wherein he along with other accused was alleged to have been found in possession of 18.31 grams of MDMA, which was seized. Counsel for the petitioner argued that only omnibus allegations were made, the material part of investigation was complete (L.Ws.1 to 12 examined), the petitioner was a permanent resident without criminal antecedents, and the prosecution relied only on an alleged confession of no evidentiary value. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed, stating the petitioner is a drug peddler, that investigation was in progress with risk of tampering with evidence and threatening of witnesses, and that other cases were pending against him. Invoking Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court held that offences involving commercial quantities are non-bailable and bail requires reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail; not satisfied that these conditions were met given the serious allegations, the Court found the petition lacking in merit and dismissed it.

¶1

[^338s I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9824 OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mohammed Qasimuddin, S/o Md. Khaja Moinuddin Ag ed about. 27 Yrs, Occ. ri: Real Estate Agent Rio H.No.4-7-154148912, Anand Nagar. Colony, Bagh Hayath Nagar, Ranga Reddy District

¶10

... Petitioner/Accused No. 1

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad through PS L.B. Nagar

¶13

...RespondenUCom plainant

¶14

Petition under Section 480 & 483 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum cif Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/A-1 herein on bail in connection with in Crime No.553 of 2025 on the file of L.B. Nagar Police Station Rachakbnda Commissionerate in the interest of^justice.

¶15

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

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶18

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9824 of 2or25

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

lleeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner w,ho is arraye,l as accused No. i in Crime No.553 of 2A25 of L.B. Nagar Police Station, Rachakr:nda Commissionerate, on bail, the prr:sent Criminal Petition is fiieci.

¶21

llhe case oi the prosecution is rhat petitioner/accused No.l along with other accused was found in possession of 18.31 grams of MDMA anci the same was seized. Basing on the sarne, the above crime r,r'as registered.

¶22

I{eard Sri R. Prasanth, learned counsel appi:aring cn behalf of the petitioner as^.,vell as Sri D. Arun KLrmar, learned Additicnal Public Prosecutor appearing on behaif of the responCent - State.

¶23

Leanied counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint did not attribute any specific overt acts agair-rst the petitiorrer and only omnibus allegations were made. He further submitted that the poiice had alreaciy'ccmpieted the rnaterial part of investigation, examineri L.ws.1 to 12 anc all materia!

¶24

¶25

sKs,J Crl.P.No.9824 of 2025

¶26

witnesses, and hence there was no apprehension of tampering with the evidence. He contended that the^{petitioner was} a permanent resicient of Anand Nagar Colony, Bagh Hayath Nagar, hailing from a middle-class family^{withoutany criminal} antecedents. He further contended that the^{prosecution had} no evidence against the petitioner except an^alleged confession, which hari no evidentiary value.^{Therefore, he} prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

¶27

On the other hand, learned Additional Public^Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the^{learnedcounsel for the} petitioner stating that the petitioner is a drug^{peddler. He} further submitted that the investigation is in^{progressand if} the petitioner is released on bail, at this^{stage, he may tamper} with the evidence and rr,ay threaten the witnesses.^He contended that the there are othei' cases^{pending against the} petitioner. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

¶28

This Court, considering submissions made by both^the learned counsel and reviewing the material^{available on} record, it is noted that the contention^of the^{petitioner that the}

¶29

\ \

¶30

¶31

SKS,J Crl.P.No.9824 of 2025

¶32

) \

¶33

\ t

¶34

case is false, fictitious, and fabricated, the case was registered without following the due procedure. L{owever, the Additional Public Prosecutor opposes bail citing commercial quantity weighirrg 18.31 grams of MDMA. At this stage, it is pertinent to note Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under:

¶35

"37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 12 of 97a1,--(al every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

¶36

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for 1[offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences in.,zolving commercial quantityl shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless--

¶37

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

¶38

(ii) where the Public 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 bail.

¶39

(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in ciause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 19741or any other lau, for the time being in force on granting ci bail."

¶40

¶41

sKs,J Crl.P.No.9824 of 2o25

¶42

In view thereof, Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that offences involving commercial quanrities be non-bailable, requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further oflfences 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. Therefore, the criminal pctition lacks merit and the same is liable'to be dismissed

¶43