ORDER : 1. Since these Criminal Petitions are filed, under Section 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail, by different accused i.e. Crl. Pet. No. 9252 of 2023 (filed by A2), Crl. Pet. No. 9302 of 2023 (filed by A.1) and Crl. Pet. No. 9314 of 2024 (filed by A3) in same crime viz. Cr. No. 48/1/6/2023/NCB/SUB-ZONE/HYD, they are being taken up together for disposal by way of this Common Order. 2. The above crime was registered against the Petitioner and others for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 22(c), 28 & 29 of NDPS Act. 3. The Prosecution’s case, in brief, is that on 05.06.2023, the Intelligence Officer of the Union of India’s NCB received information regarding the manufacturing of a large quantity of Alprazolam in the production block of CPR Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. in Atchuthapuram APSEZ, Rambilli Mandal. Acting on this information, the Intelligence Officer, along with mediators, found A.1 to A.3 at the production block, where they were packing materials in drums. Subsequently, 119.5 kgs of light yellow powder, suspected to be Alprazolam, were seized from the drums, along with equipment, in the presence of the laboratory owner, under the NDPS Act. A.1 to A.3 confessed to their involvement in the manufacturing, possession, and attempted transportation of the substance. 4. In response, the learned counsel for the Petitioners argued their innocence, stating that they have been falsely accused. A.1 has a background as a chemist and has held positions such as shift-in-charge and production manager in pharmaceutical companies. A.2 holds a PhD in Chemistry and has worked as a senior scientist in various laboratories. A.3, on the other hand, has been a petty worker, previously employed in a cement factory and seeds shop until 2020. The Petitioners were arrested while working in a laboratory run by A.4, and they have been detained in Central Jail, Visakhapatnam, since 07.06.2023. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that in the instant case, Alprazolam is a prescription drug which figures at Entry No. 15 in Schedule ‘H’ of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 (for short ‘D’ & ‘C’ Act’). 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that in the instant case, Alprazolam is a prescription drug which figures at Entry No. 15 in Schedule ‘H’ of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 (for short ‘D’ & ‘C’ Act’). Though it is a psychotropic substance by Entry No. 30 in the Schedule to the NDPS Act, it is not a psychotropic substance mentioned in Schedule I of the Rules appended to the said Act; when a psychotropic substance does not find mentioned in the Schedule I to the Rules, the prohibition concerning its possession contained in Rule 64 does not apply and since the powder involved in the present case find mention in Schedule ‘H’ of the D&C Act, as such, the Alprazolam will be covered under the D&C Act and not under the NDPS Act. Citing the case of State of Uttaranchal vs. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, 2006 (3) JCC (Narcotics) 178 of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the counsel asserted that where the provisions of the NDPS Act do not prima facie apply, the right to bail cannot be denied unless a clear case for the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is established. The Petitioners, who have clear antecedents and are permanent residents of Hyderabad with their families, have no intention of absconding. Moreover, since the investigation is nearly complete and awaiting the filing of the charge sheet, the Petitioners are willing to cooperate. 6. On the other hand, Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned Special Public Prosecutor for NCB, representing the Respondent-State, filed a counter and argued that the contraband was seized from the accused persons, and all relevant provisions of the NDPS Act were adhered to. The accused voluntarily admitted to manufacturing a substantial quantity of Alprazolam, which exceeds the commercial quantity stipulated under the NDPS Act. Additionally, they confessed to previous involvement in producing Alprazolam using the same modus operandi. Phone call transactions between the accused were also noted prior to their arrest, indicating their involvement in illegal activities. Given their criminal history with Alprazolam and habitual offending, the accused are not entitled to bail due to the statutory embargo imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 7. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the petition and the report. Given their criminal history with Alprazolam and habitual offending, the accused are not entitled to bail due to the statutory embargo imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 7. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the petition and the report. Consequently, the contentions raised by learned counsel need not be reproduced. 8. The Respondent-state’s case is that on 05.06.2023, upon receiving specific information about the manufacturing of a large quantity of Alprazolam by four Telugu-speaking individuals, the information was reduced into writing and forwarded to Sri Sumit Arya, Superintendent of NCB Hyderabad Sub- Zone. Acting on his instructions, the NCB Department mobilized and, with two independent witnesses, proceeded to the location where the Petitioners were found packing material into drums. During the interception, 119.5 kgs of light yellow powder suspected to be Alprazolam was discovered in the drums and subsequently seized. 9. Furthermore, according to the Respondent-State, the Petitioners/Accused confessed in their voluntary statements under section 67 of the NDPS Act to manufacturing the aforementioned quantity of Alprazolam. Additionally, A.2 and A.3 disclosed that they had previously produced approximately 44 kgs of Alprazolam with their associates in November 2022. The Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) in Hyderabad confirmed that the seized substance was indeed Alprazolam, a psychotropic substance. 10. The Respondent contends that Alprazolam has been designated as contraband under Sl. No. 178 of Notification No. 1055(E) dated 19.10.2001, issued pursuant to Section 2 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Moreover, the commercial quantity of Alprazolam is 100 grams, whereas the Petitioners/A.2 to A.4 were apprehended while packing 119.5 kgs of Alprazolam, exceeding the commercial quantity by 1195 times. 11. In response, the learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused argues that since the present matter involves manufactured drugs, the Petitioners should be prosecuted for violating the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 12. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the order passed in Criminal Petition No. 9881 of 2023 on the file of this Court, wherein A.2 and A.3 were appointed as salesman, and they alleged to have supplied the Alprazolam tablets to various retail, medical shops, this Court granted anticipatory bail with following observations: 5. This Court perused the entire material on record. This Court perused the entire material on record. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. Raj Kumar Arorara’s case, Para 24 reads as follows: “24. Referring to the facts of the case, the Supreme Court noted that it was not in dispute that the medicines seized from the clinic of the accused therein fell within the purview of Schedules ‘G’ and ‘H’ of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. It was also not in dispute that the same were mentioned in the Schedule to the NDPS Act, but did not find place in Schedule- I appended to the NDPS Rules. In this context, the Supreme Court made a categorical observation as under: ...If the said drugs do not find place in Schedule I appended to the Rules, the provisions of Section 8 of the 1985 Act would have no application whatsoever. Section 8 of the 1985 Act contains a prohibitory clause, violation whereof leads to penal offences thereunder. The Supreme Court further observed that: “In view of the fact that all the drugs being Item No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 & 7 being allopathic drugs mentioned in Schedules G and H of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act indisputably are used for medicinal purposes. Once the drugs are said to be used for medicinal purposes, it cannot be denied that they are acknowledged to be the drugs which would come within the purview of description of the expression “medicinal purposes. Consequently, the Supreme Court was of the view that inasmuch as the NDPS Act would in itself not apply, Section 37 thereof would, prima facie have no application in view of the exception contained in Section 8 thereof read with the NDPS Rules. Resultantly, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order of the High Court granting bail.” The reading of the said order shows that it is not the allegation made against the Accused therein that they manufactured Alprazolam tablets. 13. Resultantly, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order of the High Court granting bail.” The reading of the said order shows that it is not the allegation made against the Accused therein that they manufactured Alprazolam tablets. 13. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2019) 2 SCC 466 wherein it held that: “13.......we note that Section 80 of the NDPS Act, clearly lays down that application of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is not barred, and provisions of the NDPS Act can be applicable in addition to that of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The statute further clarifies that the provisions of the NDPS Act are not in derogation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. This Court in Union of India v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande, (2014) 13 SCC 1 , has held that: “35.........essentially the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 deals with various operations of manufacture, sale, purchase, etc. of drugs generally whereas Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 deals with a more specific class of drugs and, therefore, a special law on the subject. Further, the provisions of the Act operate in addition to the provisions of the 1940 Act.” 14. The aforesaid decision in Union of India v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande, (2014) 13 SCC 1 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 496 further clarifies that, the NDPS Act, should not be read in exclusion to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Additionally, it is the prerogative of the State to prosecute the offender in accordance with law. In the present case, since the action of the respondent-accused amounted to a prima facie violation of Section 8 of the NDPS Act, they were charged under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. 15. In light of the above observations, we find that the decision rendered by the High Court holding that the respondent-accused must be tried under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 instead of the NDPS Act, as they were found in possession of the “manufactured drugs” does not hold good in law...........” 14. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State further relied on the decision in State of Kerala vs. Rajesh, (2020) 12 SCC 122 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that: 17. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State further relied on the decision in State of Kerala vs. Rajesh, (2020) 12 SCC 122 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that: 17. The jurisdiction of the court to grant bail is circumscribed by the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It can be granted in case there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence, and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is the mandate of the legislature which is required to be followed. 19. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained under Section 439 Cr.P.C. but is also subject to the limitation placed by Section 37 which commences with non-obstante clause. The operative part of the said section is in the negative form prescribing the enlargement of bail to any person accused of commission of an offence under the Act, unless twin conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application; and the second, is that the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting bail operates. 20. The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 that in addition to the limitations provided under the Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for. 15. It is not in dispute that medicines seized from the Petitioners’ possession fell within the purview of the schedules G and H of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 16. 15. It is not in dispute that medicines seized from the Petitioners’ possession fell within the purview of the schedules G and H of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 16. The Petitioners argue that Alprazolam/Alprax tablets are utilized for medicinal purposes, and according to a notification dated 26.02.2003 from the Ministry of Finance and Company Affairs, Government of India, the salt Alprazolam has been removed from Schedule II of the NDPS rules, 1985. Consequently, they assert that they have not committed any offence by possessing Alprazolam/Alprax, and thus, the offence under section 22(b) of the NDPS Act does not apply to them. 17. The counsel for the Petitioner further argues that the substances in question are also listed in Schedule H of Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945. While it is acknowledged that the substances in question are psychotropic substances as defined under section 2(xxiii) of the NDPS Act and are included in the Schedule to the NDPS Act, it’s notable that Alprazolam is specifically mentioned in S. No. 30 of the NDPS Act. However, psychotropic substances are not listed in Schedule I to the NDPS Rules. 18. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the Judgments of the High Court of Delhi in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Raj Kumar Arora and Another in Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 494 of 2007, dated 13.07.2011 and State vs. Bhim Singh Tyagi in S.C. No. 28 of 2007, dated 30.05.2013 as well as the Judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan in Satpal and Others vs. State of Rajasthan, 1996 SCC Online Raj 675. However, upon careful examination of these judgments, this Court finds that the observations therein do not support the Petitioners’ case, as they do not pertain to the manufacturing of drugs without the requisite license under the D&C Act. 19. Alprazolam is currently listed as Schedule H1 drug under Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945 (as amended by (Seventh Amendment) Rules, 2022). It is also pertinent to refer to following rules provided there under: Rule 65 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, specifies general conditions of licences, these conditions are made applicable to Schedule H1 drugs also. Rule 69 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, deals with “Application for licence to manufacture drugs other than those specified in Schedules C and C(I) to the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules.” 20. Rule 69 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, deals with “Application for licence to manufacture drugs other than those specified in Schedules C and C(I) to the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules.” 20. In this case, prima facie, the medical drug contains Alprazolam, which is listed as a psychotropic substance in Schedule of the NDPS Act. However, the Petitioners/Accused persons failed to produce any documentation demonstrating that they possessed a valid license under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and had complied with the prescribed conditions. 21. At this juncture, it’s pertinent to note that section 22 of the NDPS Act prohibits the possession, manufacture, sale, etc., of psychotropic substances in contravention of any provision of the Act or any Rule or Order made there under, which reads as follows: Punishment for contravention in relation to psychotropic substances - Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter- State, exports inter-State or uses any psychotropic substance shall be punishable: (a) where the contravention involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to [one year] or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both. (b) where the contravention involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. (c) where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees: Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees. 22. Alprazolam is further listed under Schedule I of the NDPS Act as a psychotropic substance. Relevant rules under Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 (Amended by (Second Amendment) Rules, 2021 are Rule 64 and 65A. Rule 64 deals with “Manufacture of psychotropic substances, it mandates that no person can manufacture any psychotropic substances except in accordance to the conditions of license granted under Drugs and Cosmetics Rules framed under Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Relevant rules under Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 (Amended by (Second Amendment) Rules, 2021 are Rule 64 and 65A. Rule 64 deals with “Manufacture of psychotropic substances, it mandates that no person can manufacture any psychotropic substances except in accordance to the conditions of license granted under Drugs and Cosmetics Rules framed under Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Furthermore, Rule 65A deals with “Sale, purchase, consumption or use of psychotropic substances. 23. Prima facie, the material on record lacks evidence of compliance with the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940, as there were no purchase bills or explanations provided regarding the manufacturing process. Additionally, the Petitioners possessed no documents indicating the purpose for manufacturing such a significant quantity of a Schedule ‘H’ Drug containing a narcotic substance. 24. The offence having been committed on 05.06.2023 and the amended Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (in addition to rules framed there under respectively) will apply to the present case at hand. At this stage, it is pertinent to refer to relevant provisions under the enactments: Section 18(a)(vi) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, mandates that no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf shall manufacture for sale or for distribution, or sell, or stock or exhibit or offer for sale or distribute any drug or cosmetic in contravention of any provisions under the Act or rules made thereunder. Furthermore, Section 18(c) of the D&C Act reads as follows: “(c) [manufacture for sale or for distribution, or sell, or stock or exhibit or offer for sale] or distribute any drug [or cosmetic], except under and in accordance with the conditions of, a licence issued for such purpose under this Chapter: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to the manufacture, subject to prescribed conditions, of small quantities of any drug for the purpose of examination, test or analysis: Provided further that the [Central Government] may, after consultation with the Board, by notification in the Official Gazette, permit, subject to any conditions specified in the notification, the [manufacture for sale, or for distribution, sale, stocking or exhibiting or offering for sale] or distribution of any drug or class of drugs not being of standard quality.” 25. The material on record indicates that the Petitioners/Accused were found in possession of manufactured drugs in bulk without licence. The material on record indicates that the Petitioners/Accused were found in possession of manufactured drugs in bulk without licence. This Court agrees with the submission of the Respondent’s counsel that the actions of the Accused amount to a clear violation of Section 8 of the NDPS Act, which expressly prohibits the possession of Narcotic substances except for medicinal or scientific purposes. 26. It is further submitted that Section 80 of NDPS Act, 1985 reads as follows: “The provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 or the rules made thereunder.” 27. In this case, the Petitioners face charges involving a commercial quantity of contraband, triggering the necessity to adjudicate their bail application in accordance with section 37 of the NDPS Act. 28. Additionally, the material on record indicates that the Petitioners have a history of criminal involvement, and a case was previously registered against them by R.C. Puram Police, Hyderabad, concerning the Alprazolam drug. 29. Given the significant quantity of Alprazolam found in the possession of the Petitioners and their lack of a valid manufacturing license, this Court concludes that the conditions outlined in section 37 of the NDPS Act are not satisfied. This Court views that the NCB officials collected the material prima facie to show the Petitioners’ involvement in the commission of the offence. There are insufficient grounds to presume the Petitioners’ innocence, leading the Court to deny the petition due to its lack of merit. 30. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions stand dismissed. 31. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.