ii= I `\. _|1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL test TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE `ggr :PRESENT: ofr THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA R Between CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3983 OF 2025 •.....,`J' of Rachabathuni RahuI, S/o Srinivasa Rao, aged about 22 years, R/o lst Lane, ( SI'Vanagaraju Colony, Gun{ur (A5) ur .I.Petitioner/Accused No.5 tsj3P ``` ```` `` AND The State-SHO, Prohibition and EXcise Station, Guntur-ll -Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court ofAndhra Pradesh. tar `` . \heA,..,. \'--,-I_ ...Respondent ngrff, Petition under sections<437 & 439 of Cr.P.C (Under Sections 480 & *r-- 483 of BNSS) praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No. 5 on bail pending disposal of Crime No. 25/2025 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Guntur-lI. I+ tr The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the memorandum of grounds filed in #pporf thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA Advocate for the Petitioner, and of PUBL.lC PROSECUTOR, for the Respondent; -APHCO10188822025 =F-EE IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3983/2025 Between : Rachabathuni Rahul The Statesho ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND ...RESPONDENT/COIVIPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order= This Criminal Petition under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, has been filed by the petitioner herein/A5, seeking regular bail in crime No.25 of 2025 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Guntur-II, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 21 (C) and 20(B)(ii)(A) of the NDPS, Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 18.02.2025, on receipt of credible information, the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, along with his staff and mediators, rushed to Empty site located at Right side of Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Brundavan Gardens and observed two male persons. on seeing them, they perturbed and tried to skulk away, on suspicion, the police caught hold them and enquired them in the presence of __ - 2GZfial ~ 2 ~r mediators after duly complied the procedure, they seized 1.25 I grams of Meth from the possession Of A4 and seized 1.27 grams ll of Meth from the possession Of A5 admitted the guilt Of Offence. Their confession leads tO recovery Of total 8.15 grams of Meth (total 9.42 grams of Meth) in seIYen Plastic Z-IP lock cover from ll the possession of the accused and also 1 kg of dry ganja, 9 smart phones, one brown colour paper cover containing electronic weighing machine linix note book, one card board box ll ll containing one glass hookah pipe, one empty glass vessel, two empty plastic bottles and four plastic covers containing small covers and one Honda Activa 5G two wheeler bearing Chasis l1. No.ME4JF50AGJT 311574 under cover of mediatOrnama, arrested the accused and remanded to judicial custody. 3. Learned COunSel for the petitioner Submits that the total quantity of contraband said to be seized from the possession of the petitioner herein is 1.27 grams of ``MethJJ (Metamfetamine) drug and it does not come under I:he definition of commerc'lal quantity. Moreover, the Petitioner herein -Was arrested On 18.02.2025 and since then he was languishing in ja|ll. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has not disputed the correctness of the said submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground •-' .r / that investigation in the present crime is not completed. According to his instructions, the petitioner herein has no previous crime record. 5. Heard. Perused the record. 6. The contention of the learned counse.I for the petitioner is that even according to the case of the prosecution, the contraband alleged t:o be seized is not of commercial quantity. In support of the said contention, the petitioner counsel-placed reliance on Section 2(viia) of the NDPS Act which reads as follows: (viia) "Commercia/ quantityl', in relation ,to narcot'lc drugs and psychotropic substances, means any quantity greater than the quantity specified by the Centra/ Government by notification in the Officia/ Gazette . '' 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also Placed reliance On the notification specifying small quantity and commercial quantity. "A perusal of the above definition of commercial quant-lty wou/d show that in re/ation to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, any quantity which is greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the officia/ gazette wou/d fal/ within the definition of commercia/ quantity. The relevant portion of the chart/table which enumerates var-Ious narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and also specifies the quantity on account of which either the drug wou/d be less than sma// quantity or between sma// quantity and commercia/ quantity or commercia/ quantity, is reproduced herein below: Notification specifying small quantity and Commercia/ Quantity In exercise of the powers conferred by Clauses (Vii~a) and (xx-li'l-a) of Section 2 of Narcot-lc Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) and in supersession of Ministry of Finan€e, Department of Revenue Notification S.O, 527(E) dated ldh Ju/y, 1996, except as respects th-lngs done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Centra/ Government hereby SPeCifi-eS the quantity ment-lOned -ln /-I \` .-I '`so '-x-. -7 edz co/umns 5 and 6 of the Tab/e below, in relation to the narcotic drug or psychotropic ll substance mentioned in the corresponding entry in co/umns 2 to 4 of the said Table, as the sma// quantity and commercia/ quantity respective/y for the Purposes Of the Said Clauses Of that Section. S.No Name of Narcotic Other non Chemical Smal/ Commercial Drug and Psychotropic proprietar name Quantity (in Substa nces(International non-proprietaryname(INN) y name quantity (ingm.) gm./kg.) J 2 i) 4 5- 6 160 METAMFETAMINE 2gm 50gm 8, A conjoint reading of Section 2(viia) ofNDPSAct and thetable would show that the quantity more than 50 grams of Metamfetamine ll would be considered to be commercial quantity. In view of the same, this Colirt finds force in the s-ubmission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and it is also not disputed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 9. The petitioner was arrested on 18.02.2025 and since then he is in jail. The quantity of .Metamfetamine allegedly seized from the possession Of the Petitioner iS 1.27 grams, which is non-commercial quantity. Since the petitioner is having permanent abode at Guntur and in view of'the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, request of the petitioner can,be considered for baiI| 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for offjft_-~,I 5 r/ Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition & Excise, Guntur. On release, the petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, once in a fortnight, for a period of two (2) months. The petitioner shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the Prosecution witnesses. Sd/-M.PRABHAKARA RAO ASSISTANT EGISTRAR CTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Special Judge for Trial of Cases under NDPS Act-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, Guntur District 2. The Special Judicial First class Magistrate for Prohibition & Excise, Guntur, Guntur District 3. The Superintendent, District Jail, Guntur, Guntur District 4. The Station House Officer, Prohibition & Excise Station, Guntur-ll, Guntur District 5. One CC to SRI. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA Advocate [OPUC1: 6. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. One spare copy PSR HIGH COURT TMR]J DATED : 25/04/2O25 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.3983 of 2025 ALLOWED 28 APE 2l)25