The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 482 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.2, on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in FIR No.228 of 2022 on the file of Bhadrachalam Town police station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, pending investigation and trial, This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Muthyala Praveen, Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Addl public prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER /) THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SU.]ANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1209 OF 2025 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/A.2 seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Cr.No.22l\ of 2022 of Bhadrachalam Town Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. The offences alleged against the pelitir>ner are under Sections 8 (cl r / w.2O (b) of Narcotic Drugs an.C Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'J.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.C8.2O22, while the police conducting vehicle check at the Forest Check post of Bhadrachalam, the Sub-Inspector and his team intercepted two vehicles, a Toyota Innova bearing No.AP 39 C,\ O 149 and a Maruti Suzuki Swift bearing AP 35 AF 0378, carqring contrabald dry ganja. The occupants attempted t.o flee, but one person, Mulagada Anvesh, was apprehended. Anvesh revealed that he, along with Gadigatla Kumar and Pallanti Praveen, had loaded the ganja near Sukumamidi villag,e and were transporting it to Chennai. A total of 594 kg of grrnja, valued at t1,18,80,000, was seized from the vehicles, wlLi,:h were also confiscated. The accused were brought to the Bhadrachalam 2 o Town Police Station, and the seized contraband was weighed ald documented in the presence of panch witnesses. Basing on the complaint, police registered the case against the accused for the above offences a Heard Sri M.Praveen, learned counsel for the petitioner ald learned Additional public prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that pelitioner is innocent of the said offences and that he had no role in the alleged offence. petitioner is no way involved in procurement, possession or transportation of the contraband. learned counsel relied on the judgment in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs State of punjabr holding that the Court must consider the petitioner,s likelihood to abscond, tamper with evidence or misuse their liberty if granted bait and the petitioner herein will cooperate with the investigdtion. He also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satliagappa Mhetra Vs State of Maharashtra2, wherein it was observed that anticipatory bail shoutd be granted liberally when t (1980) 2 SCC s6s 2 (20171 1 SCC 694 :,,:-._:l':]! .-l.'f,:,:_.J I I -7 3 the role of the petitioner is peripheral or minirral. As such, prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail on the ground that 594 kgs of Garja was seized from the possession of accused, which is a commercial quantity. If bail is granted, petitioner may commit similar offences. As such prayed to dismiss this bail application.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made irnd on going through the material piaced on record, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is fals:ly implicated in this case. Petitioner is no way concerned with the alleged offences, whereas, it is the specihc stand of learr-- ed Additional Public Prosecutor that petitioner is actively involverl in this case.

7. At this stage, it is pertinent to observe thal. the Courts exercise caution while dealing with anticipatory beil petitions in NDPS cases due to the serious nature of these offences. Granting anticipatory bail in regular manner malr hamper the l ( investigation, allow the accused to abscond, and undermine public interest in prevenLing and controlling these olfences.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consisten tiy held that anticipatory baii should not be granted in NDPIJ cases as a \ 6 matter of routine, as the same may hamper the investigation and enable the accused to deslroy evidence. Further, in the case of Aaarul SK v. State of West Bengal3 ttre Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that grant of anticipatory bail in cases involving NDPS is a very serious issue. 9 - In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that grant of pre-arrest bail at a stage when the investigation is still in progress, may impede the 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 the same is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Prl District & Session Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem' 2. The Station House Officer, Bhadrachalam Town Police Station' Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

3. One CC to Sri Muthyala Praveen, Advocate [OPUC] . 4- fwtrCffi-UBLIC PROSECUTOR' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [CrJT] - '-\' @? 5 rwo / J slrelch 1fl c CD coPies .-.-.., ,l / i .t' l I HIGH COURT DATED:1310212025 ORDER CRLP.No.1209 ot 2025 ,- a-- =:-:_- /'-"- '' - 'rA;;\ /' ..t" .) J -) 21lPn 2[m 'l CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED leJ6v