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 ARAVIND KUMAR UPPALA ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Arun Kumar Dodta the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER INTHEHIGHcoURTFoRTHESTATEoFTELAIYGAI{A AT ITYDERABAI) THE IIONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJAT{A CRIMINAL PETITION No. L4aa2 of 2O25 DATE: O4.L2.2O25 FI TMtrtrtrE Ramesh Chowan @Karra Ramesh Chowan .....petitioner/accused No.3 And State of Telangana, Represented through Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. ... .. Respondent/comPlainant ORDER This criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 0f Bharatiya Nagarik suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSSJ for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.3 in coR.No.89 0f 2025 before the Prohibition and 2 sKS, J Crl.P.!Io. 148 82 ot 2O2S Exci';se Police station, Narayankhed, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(iixB) of NI)PS Act, 19g5. 2' The case of the prosecution was that on Lr.ro.2o2s, based on credibre information regarding illegal possession and sale c'f dry ganja, the Excise officials conducted a raid at House No'7-93, challagidda Tanda, where accused Nos.l and 2 wert: allegedly found with dry ganja. It was stated that accused Nos.3 to 6 had assaurted the ofrrcers and escaped with a bag of ganja in an Innova vehicle. The officials craimed to have seized 4.2 kg of dry ganja, 1.5 kg of ganja seeds, and a two-wh':eler, and registered coR No. g9 of 2o2s and a separatr: FIR No.23z of 2o2s for the alreged assault. The petitionr:r was rater shown as an accused in both cases. Nageswar Rao, learned counsel

3. He,ard Sri pappu representing Sri Arvind Kumar Uppala, Iearned counsel appearin;g on behalf of the petitioner as well as sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional public prosecutor appearing on behalf of :fre respondent _ State. 3 sKs, J Crt.P.I{o. 1t[882 of 2O2S

4. l,earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated and had no role in the alleged offences, neither possessing nor dealing with the contraband and that the investigation record itself showed inconsistencies, including contradictions with COR No. 88 of 2025, and that the petitioner was targeted due to political rivalry, as he and his family members held public positions. He further submitted that counter-cases were registered against the Excise officials for assaulting civilians, and previous politically motivated cases against the petitioner had all resulted in acquittal. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner is a drrg peddler. He further submitted that the investigation is in progress and if the petitioner is released on pre-arrest bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the evidence and may threaten the witnesses. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 4 SKS, J Crl.P.No.148a2 of 2O2S 6- In the light of the submissions made by both the learnr:d counsel and a perusal of the material available on recorcl, it is noted that the limited grievance of learned counsel for thr: petitioner is that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case and that petitioner is no way concerned with the allegeo. offence punishable under NDps Act, as nc contraband was sr:ized from his possession, whereas, it is the specific stand of learned Additional public prosecutor that petitioner is actively involved with other accused in his illegal activities. 7 - At this stage, it is pertinent to note that in cases arising under the NDPS Act, the court is required to exercise great caution while considering a prayer for anticipatory bail, keeping in view the nature of allegations, gravity of the offence, and the necessiqr of custodial interrogation for a fair and effective investigation. The Hon'ble High court, as aflirmed by the Hontrle supreme court in Dinesh chander v. state of Haryanal, has observed that where the investigation materials disclose a prima facie link of the accused with the alleged ol'fence, sugh; as his involvement being reflected from statements of co-accused, electronic communication, or 'sle 1crt.1 No. 9540 of 2ozl ! / 5 sKsl' J Crl.P.lto. 14E 82 ot 2ol25 financial transactions, the grant of pre-arrest protection would seriouslyhampertheprocessofinvestigation.Thesettled positionoflawisthatanticipatorybaitisnottobegrantedas a matter of routine or on mere assertion of innocence' particularly when the investigation is at a nascent stage and the role of the petitioner requires thorough examination' In such circumstances, the court may rightly decline to extend thediscretionaryreliefofanticipatorybai[,leavingitopento the accused to surrender before the jurisdictional court and seekregularbail,whichshallbeconsideredonitsownmerits and in accordance with law' 8 In view thereof, this criminal petition is dismissed' Miscellaneous applications, if any pend'ing, shall stand closed. /TRUE COPY'/ BHAVANI SWAMY ANT OFFICER To, The I Additional District and Sessions Judge' Sa 1 , SangareddY District.

2. The SHO Narayankhed Police Station' Sangareddy District' 3. One CC to SRI' ARAVIND KUMAR UPPALA Advocate TOPUCI o PRosEcuroR' Hish court ror the State or relansana Iil:r?3;"f"5Y55fi

5. Two CD CoPies PK {2r HIGH COURT SKSJ DATED:0r4l12l201s 3ec;li CRLP.No.14882 of 2025 rE I 2l JAll 202[ * x o CRIMINAI. PEITITION IS DISMISSED. .rd"n X.",