The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep by Public Prosecutor, Yellareddy, Kamareddy Dist, High Court at Hyderabad. Through SHO P.S ...RESPONDENT/COM PLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the Hrgh Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in F.l R. No. 196 of 2024 on the file of P.S. Yellareddy. District. Kamareddy under alteged offences Uls22(a),22(c),2o(b)(ii)(A),29 rlw 8(c) of NDPS act-1985 and Section 34(E) of TS Excise Act. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G SUMANTH KUMAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2O77 of 20/25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is hled under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for shc,rt 'BNSS') lor grant o[ pre arrcst bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as accuscd in Crime No, 196 ot 2O24 before the Yellareddy police S(ation, Kama redrlv Districr.

2. The brief fai:ts ol rhe case are on O2.1O.2O24, the police received crc<lible inl<rrrnation about the adulteration of toddy using banncrl alprazolarn at Timmapur village. Based on this information, Maht:sh, SI of Police and his team raided the l-rousc o[ l.,shuirr (ioud, where they found and seized alprazolam, chlorolbrm, dry ganja, and adulterated toddy. Eshu,ar (ior.rcl t.onlt'ssed to adulterating toddy with alprazolam. ',r'hrt:h he obtained from Kompally Nzrra Goud. Nara Goud rrlso confcssed to supplying alprazolam to Eshwar Goud. Furthc.r itrt,cstigation revealed that l,axman, a tractor driver, had r.onspirt'd u ith Srinivas Goud to implicate Eshwar Goud in a ftrlst, r::rsc Laxman confessed to placing the 7 SKS, J Crt.P.No.2077 of 2O25 adulterated substances in Eshwar Goud's house. The police seized the accused's mobile phones, Aadhaar cards, and other evidence, and requested tJle SHO to take necessary action.

3. Heard Sri G. Sumanth Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Sri Syed Yasar Marmoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on bchatI of the respondent-State.

4. trarned counsel for tJle petitioner submitted that the i petitioner is arrayed as accused No. I in the subject crime- He lurther submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are false and baseless and he was falsely implicated in thc case and that the case is based on a raid on

02. lO .2024 , r.r'here substances were allegedly found, and co acc used made confessional statements. He contended that the statements have no evidentiary value and were made u'i[h mali<:ious intent. The petitioner was granted anticipaton- bail n ith t:onclitions bur had it cancelled due to alleged violations. Thc pctrtioncr disputes these allegations and claims to have obcvcd thc conditions. A criminal revision petition is pending 3 SKS,.] Crl.P.No 2077 ot 2025 before this Court. He further submitted that no contraband was recoverecl from the petitioner, and the prosecution relies on inadmissible confessional statements. Therefore, prayed this Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petir-ioner by allowing this criminal Petil ion.

5. On the other hand, learned AdditionzLl Public Prosecutor vehemently opposcd the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner, stating that the eLllegaLions leveled against thc petitioner arc serious in naturt: At this stage, granting of pre-arrcst bail to the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, he prayed thc CourL to dismiss th': Criminal Petition.

6. In the light t.r[ thc submissions made by both the learned counscl ancl a pt:rusal o[ the material available on record, it :rppears that the primary contention of learned counsel for petitioncr is tt):rl th(] petitioner is entilJed for the relief o[ antrcipaton' bail :ts no contraband was seized from his possession and that ht' is inrrocent and no way connected with the olfencc zrs allcgcd. [{owever, it is pr:rlinent to mention that thc offcncc allcgecl against the petLtioner was 4 SKS, J CrI.P-No.2O77 of 2025 altered and the present case is for the offences punishable under NDPS Act. Further, the petitioner also filed the revision case and the same is pending before tl:is Court with the same relie[. Therefore, the present criminal petition is not main tainable.

7. Apart from that the Hon'lcle Supreme Court has consistentlv held that anticipatory bail should not be grantdd in N DPS cases as a matter of routine, as the same may hamper the irrvestigertion and enable the accused to destroy evidcnr:e Fr:rthcr, in the case of Aaarul SK Vs' State of West Bengalr thc Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that grarrt ol :uticipatory bail in cases involving NDPS is a very serrous I ss tl(l In light ol tllc above discussion' this Court is of the 8. oprnlon ttrat thc grant of pre-arrest bail at a stage when the tnvestigation is srill in progress, may impede the investigative proc('ss al)d potcntiallv prejudice the case of the prosecution' as strclr. t l)crc arc no merits in this criminal petition to grant I Petrrron for Specral Leavc Io Appeal (Crl.)No.1262U2024 dated 19-09 2024 5 SKS, J C(l P No 2077 of 2025 pre-€urest bail to the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissecl Miscellaneous applications, if erny pending, shall stand closed. ,ffRUECOPY/I Sd/. A.V.S,PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR - L , sEcrloN 6rrtcen To i,ilit{fiiffi i;$iLT:ltrFr:,..Iilf tH:'hrffi #t3't:r:Exr"i* . Bf""[8?3 S*Ytb t,'o*rH KUMAR Advocate toPUCl 5. Two CD CoPies t HIGH COURT DATED: 2110212025 I I I ORDER CRLP.No.2077 ot 20ZS //) 1HE SI4 3 (o ( ? C) 0 4 JUN 2[25 spA rc r rF-o * CRL.PETITION IS DISMTSSED too-