Sagar Pawar @ Sagar v. The State Of Telangana
[ 3385 I
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITI NO: 13801 AF 2025 Between:
Sagar_Pawar _@ Sagar, S/o Premkumar Pawar, Aged about 23 years, Occ. l_orry Driver, R/o Madbol Tanda, Sedam Road, Gulbarga District, Karnataka State.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.4 AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Honourable High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. ... RESPON DENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under section 482 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 grant bail to the Petitioner/Accused No. 4 in Crime No. 61712025 of P.S Dundigal, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(bXiiXC), 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, and pass.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri LAMBA SAI KUMAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER .:*il:--;ii.
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.138Ol of 2ot25 ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.4 in Crime No.6 L7 of 2025 before the Dundigal Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(iiXC) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short'NDPS ActJ.
2.
The brief facts of the case revolve arouncl seizure of total 12O Kgs of Ganja. The petitioner was arrested on 22.06.2025 for the offences as alleged.
3.
Heard Sri L.Sai Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondentState. 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He
!- \*- contended that the investigation was completed without following due process, causing prejudice to the petitioner. He asserted that in spite of petitioner being no way connected with the alleged offence, he has been languishing in judicial custody. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow this criminal petition, granting the relief of bail to petitioner. 5.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the total seized quantity of ganja is 120 kgs which falls under commercial quantity, therefore, averred that the question of granting bail to the petitioner does not arise. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
6.
Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going throtigh the material placed on record, it is noted that the contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the case against the petitioner is false and fictitious, whereas, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the petition, citing that seized ganja is commercial quantity. That being so, at this stage, it is pertinent to note Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under:
-
"37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. --
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of D7al,--(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;
(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 quantityl shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (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.
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in \ clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the \ \ \ limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, lg73 (2 of 19741or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail."
7.
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 satis{ied that conditions for granting bail under section 37 are met. That apart, it is pertinent to note that as per the material on record, primafacie case is made against the petitioner. 8.
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 liable to be dismissed.
9.
Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed SD/- V DEPU STRAR I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The Vlll Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Medchal.
2. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Dundigal, Cyberabad Commissionerate.
3. Two ccs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High court at Hyderabad. (oUT)
4. One CC to SRI LAMBA SAI KUMAR Advocate [OpUC]
5. Two CD Copies TPK/PSL ,. : .,:. r.
' r+-*,c:r.i.l:
HIGH COURT DATED: 1011112025 { vl\ r''
( flnt : ;l * ,i
ORDER
CRLP.No.13801 ot 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED q