The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A.JAGAN, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.241 OF 2O2S ORDER This criminal petition is filed by ttre petitioner/A.3 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.469 of 2O24 of Narsamper Police Station, Warangal. The offences alleged against thc petitioner are under Sections 8 (c) r/w.Section 2O (b) (ii) (B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.11.2024 at O2.1O hours, the Sub-lnspector of Police, Narsampet police station along with his staff while conducting patrolling duty and reached infront of VNR Milk & Milk Products Marketing Oflice on Warangal road at Narsampet, conducting vehicle check when they stopped a two wheeler, ttre accused persons who were riding the said bike, on seeing the police, they tried to flee away. lmmediately, the police apprehended A.1 and A.3 escaped on seeing them. The pohce seized dry ganja weighing 1.98O kgs, vehicle bearing No.TS 25 G 61f6 and mobile phone from the possession of A. I and as per the confession statement of A. l, I ! 2 the police went to FCI Colony, Cropalpur, Hanamkonda to the house of A.2 and seized I packet of dry ganja weighing 1.9O0 kgs and 2 packets of dry ganja weighing 1.8O0 kgs and mobile phone of A.2 and apprehended A. 1 and A.2 and seizrd the propert5r under the cover of panchanama. Basing on tJ.e complaint the police registered tlre case against the accused for the said offences.

3. Heard Sri A. Jagan, learned counsel for t.l.e petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was remaaded to judicial custody on 28.11.2024. Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and he is falsely implicated in this case by the police. Petitioner is an IT employee and he is no way connected with this crime and nothing has been seized from the possession of this petitioner. Further, the material part of investigation is completed and the ganja seized in this crime is not commercial quantity. As such, prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner. 3

5. On the other hand learned Additional hrblic Prosecutor opposed bail on the ground tJ:at tJle allegations leveled against the petitioner are of serious nature and the quantity seized is a commercial quantity. Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. Havtng regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the limited gnevance of leamed counsel for tlte petitioner is that petitioner was falsely implicated in this case solely on the basis of confession made by the other accused in whose possession contraband u'as seized and that petitioner is no way concerned with the alleged offences, whereas, it is the specific case of learned Additionat Public Prosecutor ttrat petitioner is actively involved in this case.

7. At lhis stage, it is pertinent to observe that the Courts exercise caution while dealing with anticipatory bail petitions in NDPS cases due to the serious nature of these offences' Granting anticipatory bail in regular manner may hamper the investigation, allow the accused to abscond, and undermine public interest in preventing and controlling these offences. I i i I I I 4 r-)

8. The Honble Supreme Court has consistently held that anticipatory bail should not be gralted in NDPS cases as a matter of routine, as the same may hamper the investigation and enable the accused to destroy evidence. Further, in the case of Anaruf SK v. State of West Be-€dr t.Ile Hon'ble Supreme Court observed tJlat grant of anticipatory bail in cases involving NDPS is a very serious issue.

9. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that grant of pre-arrest bail at a staBe when the investigation is still in progress, may impede tlle investigative process and potentially prejudice the case of the prosecution, as such, there are no merits in this criminal petition to grant pre- arrest bail to the petitioner and tl.e same is liable to be dismissed. 1O. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. I I ?ittltr {6r sFdJ ta".r.,e b elpeJ C c<l.1 po . tz€2 | l>q Dll rq-q -* . //TRUE COPY// sd/- L. LAKSHMI BABU / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR .I CTION OFF To, 1 The Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate at Narsampet' 2. The Station House Officer, Narsampet Police Stat'ron, Warangal District 3 One CC to SRI JAGAN ALLABOINA Advocate {OPUCI 4 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD CoPies. Rr PM/gh HIGH COURT DATED:21lO1l2o?.5 ORDER CRLP.No.241 of 2(\25 I i I I I I I i I ! CRIMINAL PETITIoN IS DISMISSED ?+ ev\;l 8ce&[ I 1 t1E S{r1 i"(. I l o o \<- \. ). 2 / FEB ?B?5 -OS PAT C, vrEO t o C: