Pulloonichalil Abdulla Salam vs. The Superintendent Of Customs (Preventive) Hyderabad Customs Commissionerate, GST Bhavan

Facts

The petitioner, Pullonichalil Abdulla Salam (A.1), filed a Criminal Petition seeking bail. The prosecution's case is that on receiving information about two passengers carrying contraband from Hanoi to Hyderabad, the Air Intelligence Unit of Customs Hyderabad apprehended the petitioner. His confessional statement was recorded, and 9100 grams of Ganja were seized. The petitioner was produced before the Court on 08.03.2026 and remanded to judicial custody. He has been in custody since then. The respondent is the State of Customs (Preventive), Hyderabad Customs Commissionerate.

Held

The Court allowed the Criminal Petition and granted regular bail to the petitioner/A.1. The reasoning was based on the petitioner having been in judicial custody since 08.03.2026 and the seized contraband being 9100 grams. The Court noted that, according to the respondents, no other cases were pending against the petitioner. The bail was granted subject to specific conditions: executing a personal bond of Rs. 15,000/- with two sureties, appearing before the respondent authority every Wednesday for eight weeks or until the charge sheet is filed, and abiding by the conditions stipulated in Section 480(3) of BNSS (formerly Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.). The issue of whether the contraband was intended for higher rates in Bangkok was implicitly considered but did not prevent the grant of bail given the other factors.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), considering he has been in judicial custody since 08.03.2026 and the seized contraband is an intermediate quantity, making Section 37 of the NDPS Act inapplicable? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that he has been in judicial custody since 08.03.2026. He argues that the seized contraband, 9100 grams of ganja, is an intermediate quantity, and therefore, Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable. He claims to be falsely implicated and states that the investigation is completed, thus requesting regular bail. Respondent's Arguments: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. While acknowledging the seized contraband is an intermediate quantity, the respondent submits that it was being transported to Bangkok for higher rates. They further argue that the investigation is not yet completed, and at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to bail.