The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8371 OF 202s Between: DEEPA @ DEEPI/ALA, W/o Housewife. R/o. H No.1-105, Hyderabad 08. Ralender Singh, aged about. Lodha Basthi, Nanakramguda, 40 years, Occ. Serilingamp a lly, AND ...PETITIONER/ACC USED NO.7 The State of^Telangana, Through SHO Prohibition and Excise Station, Dhoolpet, llyderabad, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. ' .,.RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the orcumstances stated in the lt/emorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to grant Antrcipatory Bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.7 in the event of his arrest in crime/coR No.32 of 2025 on the file of SHo prohibition and Excise Station, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad Thrs Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri UIi/ESH SINGH, Advocate for the Petitioner and SRI SyED YASAR IMA[/OON, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR on behatf of the Sole Respondent The Court made the following: ORDER l I Gi )- // rD -"1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICtr J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.8371 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed undel Scction 482 o1'Bharativa Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short'BNSS') seeking anticipatoly bail to the petitioner/accused No.7 in COR No.32 of 2025 on thc trle of Prohibition and Excise Station, Dhoolpet, llyderabad, rcgistered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/rv 20(bxii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychorr.opic Substanccs Act, 1985 (fbr short 'NDPS Act')

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.04.2025 at around I 2:15 PM. based on reliable information regarding ganja transportation or.r a rrraroon Honda Scooty (Reg. No. TSl3EY0344), the pr-ohibition and Excisc Inspector, along with staff and panchas, conducted a route u,atch near thc Rani Avanti Bai Statue, Arnlapur., Asif Nagar, Llydelabad. One person arived on the said Scooty canying a bag. Upon being stopped and questioned, he identihed himself as Thakur Akash Singh, accused No.l. With his consent, the vehicle was searched, and a plastic bag containing 8 brown tape-wrapped bundles of dry ganja was found. Meanwhile, two individuals on another 2 Scooty fled the scene, abandoning their vehicle, which contained 2 more similar bundles. A total of l0 bundles weighing approximately 25.230 kgs of dry ganja were seized. During intemogation, accused No. I revealed the involvement of several other accused. He also confessed to selling ganja sachets with his mother at Rs. 500 each. Accused No.l was arrested, and two Scooties along with two mobile phones, were seized. Basing on the same, present cr.irne was registered.

3. Heard Mr.Umesh Singh, Iearned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additioral public prosecuror for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has not colxmitted alleged offences and she was falsely irnplicated in the said crime, basing on the confession statement given by the other accused. He further submitted that, even according to the allegations made in the complaint or seizure panchanama, the ingredients under Section NDPS Act are not attracted against the petitioner. He further submitted that, as per the crime occurrence repoft, the police seized only 1.522 kgs of dry ganja contained in one black_coloured polythene cover marked as MI. However, in the remand case diary and the ! ' , t I a 3 panchanama, the prosecution has stated that a total of 25.230 kgs of dry ganja u,as scized. He further submitted that petitioner is the house wife and she is not having any criminal antecedents. He lurther subrnitted that accused Nos.l and 3 rvere cnlalged on bail pursuant to the orders passed by this Courl in Crl.P.No.664l of 2025 dated 18.06.2025 and Crt.P.No.781l of 2025 dated 02.07.2025. He fufther submirted thar entire investigation is completed, except filing of charge shect and the pctitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and also ready to abide by' tl.re conditions, u,hich are going to be imposed by this Courl and hence, prayed tbr grant of baii.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted thar pel-itioncr has committed grave offences under the pr.ovisions ol NDpS Act and 25.230 kgs. of dry ganja, which was seized is a commercial quantity ar-rd the investigation is under progress and since date of legist.ration of crime i.e., on 16.04.2025, the petitioner is absconding. I lcr.rce. thc petitior.rer is not entitled for grant of bail.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it r.eveals tliat police serted. 25.230 kgs. of dry ganja, which is a cornmercial i i -l I 1 I l I !! .w \.r* ' 'a:ir:r' '-'' .' 4 quantity. As per the provisions of NDPS Act, I Kg. is the small quantity and 20 Kgs. is the commercial quantity. In the case on hand,

25.230 kgs. of dry ganja was seized, which is a commercial quantity. Insofar as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned the accused Nos.l and 3 were enlarged on bail and petitioner is also entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, tl.ris Court is of the considered view that mere granting of regular bail in favoul of accused Nos.1 and 3 is not a ground to grant bail to thc petitioner/accused No.7

7. At this stage, it is pertinent to observe that the Coufts exercise caution while dealing with anticipatory bail petitions in NDPS cases due to the selious nature of these offences. Glanting anticipatory bail in regular manner may hamper the investigation, allow the accuscd to abscond, and undermine public interest in preventing and controlling these offences. In the case of Tarabui vs State of Mahorashtrat, the Hon'ble Supreme Couft observed that the grant of anticipatory bait in NDPS cases may hamper the investigation and enable the accused to destroy evidence. Similarly, in the case of Kishore Ssmrite vs State of Uttor Pratlesh2 , the ' (1983) 2 scc 68 ' 1zorz1 ro scc o:z i i : : ' , I I I i i I I i i i i : i 5 Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that anticipatory bail should not be granted in NDPS cases as a matter of course

8. Thc I Ion'ble Supreme Court has consistently' held that anticipatory bail should rrot bc granted in NDPS casei as a rnatter of routinc, as thc salne lna) hampcl the investigation and enable the accused to destroy evidence. Furlher, in the case of Anurul SK Vs. Stote of Ll/esl Bengol the I lon,ble Supret]1c Court observed that grant of anticipatory bail in cases involving NDPS is a very serious tssue g. In tight of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the grant of prc-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 tl-ris criminal petition to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and the same is liable to be disrnissecl.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Mi scellaneous applioations, pending tf 1"r:-.r1ll:3"d - '56' rH'rdffiPHttt fHtH closed. /irRuE coPY/' To, 1 2 The I Additional Chief Judicial lVlagistrate' Hyderabad' Hyderabad District The Statlon House Officer, Dhoolpet Police Station' Dhoolpet' Hyderabad District 'rcrr&krcrn ; l / 3 One CC to SRI UN/ESH STNGH Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CCs to public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 5 Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] VIV/gh l I HIGH COURT DATED: 1610712025 ORDER CRLP.No.8371 of 2025 ':...' 10 SEP 206 lt' I Li' -,, - '/ I ) \ DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION g 4,2 ,zr