High Court · 2025

PetitionunderSection4E2ofCt.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may n" pG"t"O to enlarge the petitioner/A 10 91 anticipatory bail in the .event arrest in connection *itn con No.42 0f 2024 0n the file of the Prohibition and Excise Police Station. Narayanaguda, Hyderabad; This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum-of Grounds of criminal petitiJn and upon hearing the arguments of sri BANAVATH NAGESHWAR RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri syed Yasar Mlamoon' Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appear for the Respondent No.2; The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.8329 of 2o25 ORDER: This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ,BNSSJ the petitioner/accused No.10 seeking anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.42 of 2024 of prohibition and Excise Police Station, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with 2o(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances Act, 19g5 (for short, 'NDPS Act').

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.12.2O24 at about 7.15 p.m. on reliable information regarding illegal possession and transportation of dry ganj a, the prohibition and Excise Inspector of STF C-Team, Hyderabad, and staff along with the panchas conducted raid at opposite to Saibaba Temple Lane, Beside Victoria Ground, Chaderghat, Hyderabad, and found accused Nos.l to 4 were in possession of 2O.5 Kgs. of dry ganj a and on enquiry, they revealed that they brought the ganja on the instructions of accused Nos.9 and 1O from accused Nos.S and 6, who were standing beside them, and they are going to transport the ganja to accused Nos.l1 to 13 to sell locaily. On further , "FI \.:

2. enquiry, accused Nos 5 and 6 revealed that on instructions of accusedNos.TandStheytransportedthedryganjafromAndhra- Odisha border to Hyderabad by bus to deliver' The police seized the contraband under a cover panchanama ald registered the cr1me.

3. Heard Mr. Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel' representing Mr' B. Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner' and Mr' Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State'

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and she was falsely implicated in the above said crime basing upon the confessional statement given by the other accused' The police with an intentiontoharassthepetitioner,theyimplicatedherinthe not committed the present crime, though the petitioner has her in a PD case. offence. The police previously implicated Questioning the same, the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.No.21653 of 2Ci24 and' the Division Bench of this Court allowed the said writ petition on 77 'lO '2024 and set aside the order of detention d'ated 12 '06 '2024 and by giving cogent reasons' The police u'ith an intention to harass the petitioner implicated the ) her in the present crime. Even according to the palchanama, the only allegation made against the petitioner a,d accused No.9 is that at their instance, the other accused brought ganja. The alieged contraband was not seized from the possession of the petitioner. Hence, the ingredients under the provisions of the NDPS Act are not attracted. He further submitted that basing on the confessional statement, the prosecution is not entitled to implicate the petitioner as a,, accused. He further submitted that the petitioner is house wife and she is ready arrd willing to cooperate rvith the investigation, if any, and also abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court.

4.1. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra patel v. State of Gujarat and anotherr; and Vijay Singh v. State of Haryanaz and contended that basing on the confessional statement, the police are not entitled to implicate the petitioner as an accused and the same is not admissible under the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, lg72. 5 Per contra, learned Additional public prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has committed grave offence under the ' (20 t9) 16 scc 547 2021 SCC Onlinc SC 1235 \l ..-! 4 provisions of the NDPS Act. The police seized contraband i'e 20.5 kgs of dry ganja, which is commercial quantity' There are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner that at her instance and accused No.9, the other accused brought the galja. ' - The petitioner is absconding since the date of registration of crime i.e., on 17.12.2024 and the petitioner had approached this Court and filed the present criminal petition seeking anticipatory bail' HefurtherSubmittedthatthepetitionerisalsoinvolvedinsimilar offence and C.O.R.Nos.195 of 2016,65 of 2O18, 33 of 2O2O' 6 of 2021, 24 of 2O2l and 114 of 2022 of Serilingampally Police Station, C.O.R.Nos.l9 of 2023' 37 ot 2O23 and 44 of 2023 of Golkonda Poiice Station, and C.O'R'Nos 27O of 2024 and 272 of 2024 of Dhoolpet Police Station, are pending against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail, especially in view of the bar under Section 37of the NDPS Act.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties and aJter perusal of the material availabte on record' it reveals that the police seized 20'5 kgs' of dry Ganj a in the present crime, which is commercial quantity The crime was registered on 17.12.2Cr24 and since then the petitioner is absconding' Even ) according to the learned Additional public prosecutor, the investigation is under progress. As per the provisions of the NDpS Act, 2 kgs. is sma_ll quantity and 2O kgs. is the commercial quantity. The record further reveals that the petitioner is an accused in several crimes, which are registered under the provrsions of the NDpS Act. At this stage, it is pertinent to note Section 37 of the NDpS Act, which reads as under: '37 (r) Offences to be cognizable and non_bailable. _ Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (2 of t9Z4),_-(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) No person accused of al offence punishable for 1[offences under section l9 or section 24 or section 27 A and also for offences involving commercial quantityl shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-- (i) the Public prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) u.hcre the public prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offerrce ald that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (21 The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal procedure \- \\ \ '-- .1 -)\ 6 lg73 {2 of lg74l or any other 1aw for the time being in force on granting of bail'" In view thereof, Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that 7. offences involving commercial quantities be non-bailable requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail' ' Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the 8. petitioner that basing on the confessional statement of co- accused, the police implicated the petitioner as co-accused is inadmissible evidence as per Sectior 25 of the Indian Evidence Ac+-, ir872is concerned, the record reveals that at the instance of the petitioner and accused No'9, the other accused brought the contraband and the petitioner is an accused in similar other crlmes. In Unioa of India v. Shiv Shaker Kesari' the Hon'ble Apex I Court held that the respondent has taken a stand that the statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act under coercion. The acceptability of such a stand is a matter of trial' Additionally, the High Court has not indicated any reason as to why it was of the view that the contraband articles were not seized from the exclusive possession of the accused-respondent' 7

10. Whether the police implicated the petitioner solely basing upon the confessional statement given by the other accused or basing upon the material evidence on record, the same has to be revealed during the course of investigation. Since the date of registration of crime i.e., on 12.12.2024, the petitioner is absconding. At this stage, it is rerevant to mention that the Courts exercise cau tion while dealing with anticipatory bail petitions in NDpS cases, due to the serious nature of the offence. Granting anticipatory bail in regular manner may hamper the investigation, allow the accused to abscond, and undermine public interest in preventing and controliing theses offences. That being so, the Hon,ble Supreme Court has consistently held that anticipatory bail should not be granted in NDPS cases as a matter of routine. In the case of Tarabai v. State of Maharashtra3, the Hon,ble Supreme Court observed tht the grant ol anticipatory bail in NDpS cases may hamper the investigation and enable the accused to destroy evidence. Similarly, in the case of Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesha, the Hon,ble Supreme Court reiterated that anticipatory bail should not be granted in NDpS cases as a matter of course. ' itos:1 : scc os 'lzorzrros{:cr:z I I \- \ .-'- Lr 8

11. In the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements and statutory provisions and mindful of the fact that the 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, observes that there are no merits in this crimina-l petition to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner' Since the allegations levelled against the petitioner are grievous in nature, this Court is not satislied that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are met. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail, at this stage. I2 Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, sha1l stand closed. \ 'fl;',,'#3E8lt?f;"^H / ,ITRUE COPY/' SECTION OFFICER To, ; $3"$ iililEf#ff*. : H:ffiH:H"::"; ",r-,

4. Two CD CoPtes VSM/PSI- t) (A- HIGH COURT DATED:1410712025 ,ri S t-1p q1.. ,.\ 1E SEP 2[6 !:s". :/ ORDER GRLP.No.8329 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ( )B