CRLP/9883/2026 of DEEPA @ DEEPMALA, Vs The State of Telangana, Through Prohibition and Excise Dhoolpet, on 10 July 2026

: ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is Ulec.l under Section 48O & 483 of Bharativa Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying this Court to enlarge lhe petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No 7 in connection with Crime No 32 ol 2025 of Prohibition & trxcise Station. Dhoolpet, Hyderabad. TIre offences alleged against the petrtioner :rre under Sections 8(c) r/ w.20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act')

2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 76.04.2025 at about 12:15 p.m., acting on credible information regarding the transportation of ganja, the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, along with his staff and panch u.itnesses, conducted a vehicle check at Tappa Chabutra Road, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad. During the operation, accused No. 1 u,as intercepted while transporting ganja on a Honda Scoolv bearing No.TS 13 EY 0344. On search, eight bundles of dry ganja were found in his possession, while two other accused, who were travelling on another scooter carrying two additional bundles, abandoned the vehicle and fled from the scene. In all, 10 bundles containing 25.230 kilograms of dry ganja were seized. During interrogation, accused No. 1 disclosed the involvement of accused Nos.2 to 8 in procuring, transporting, and selling ganja, Based on his statement, the police seized the contraband, two scooters, and two mobile phones, arrested accused No. 1, and registered the present crime against eight accused for the offences under the NDPS Act'

3. Heard Sri Umesh Singh, Iearned counsel appearing for the petrtioner and Sri D Arun Kumar' learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent' of the leai-ned counsel for the petitioner is that the pelilioner I A7 has been ialsely implicated in the present case solell'on the basis of the aileged confessional statement of accused No.1, w'ithout any independent material connecting her lr.ith the alleged offence. It is contended that no contraband was recovered from her possession and that the allegation that she was to receive 3 kilograms of ganja is unsupported by any legally admissible evidence lt is further submitted thal the prosecution has registered multiple false cases against the petitioner and hel family members' that there are material discrepancies in the FIR and seizure proceedings' and that the investigation rvas conducted in a hurried and arbitrary mallner' Learned counsel firrther contencied that the conlession ol the co-accused is inadmissible in evidence in view ol the law laid dou'n by the Hon'ble Supreme Ccurt in Tofan Singh v' State of Tamil Nadul and Nikhil Chandra Mondal v' State of West

4. The contention 1 (202 1) + SCC 1

--F Bengal2. It is also subrnitted that the petitioner is a housewife with no criminal antecedents' has cooperated with the investigation, and is not likely to abscond or tamper with the evidence. Hence, petitionsp. reqnested this Court to grant bail to the

5. On the other ,1atd' learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail contending that lhe petitioner is also actively involved in this offence as A 1 was to deliver 3 kgs of Ganja to this petitioner and that she is also involved in two other crimes pertaining to the similar offences' If petitioner is granted bail' she may indulge in similar offences' as such' petitioner is not entitied to bail and prayed to dismiss this petition'

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties and upon perusal of the material available on record., it is evident that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 01'06'2026' Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that' according to the prosecution' the quantity of contraband allegedly intended to be delivered to the petitioner was only 3 kgs' the record also discloses that two other criminal cases glder the I'IDPS Act are pending against

2 Livelaw (SC) 171

the petitioner. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the material collected during the rnvestigation, ald the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bait to the petitioner at this stage and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7 . Accordrngly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, il any, pending shall stand closed iB';,['T'fi,'AIL?JYAXX //TRUE COPY// 3 One CC to Sri Umesh Singh Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor High Court Hyderabad IOUT]

5. Two CD Copies EPR/KA for the State of Telangana' at \,r.,r' ICER To,

1. The lst Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate' Hyderabad

2. The Central Prison for women Chanchalguda' Hyderabad .\ )' @:

HIGH COURT DATED: 1010712026

ORDER

CRLP.No.9883 of 2026 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED ie sl^I€

1 7 lUt 2026 zo t '. I n-.. .-^ -\-._.- _,-.o c0

(D