The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREI:NIvAs RAo CRIMINAL PETITION No.9489ottO25 ORDER: This Crirninal Petition is Iiled under Si r tion 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (t rr short .BNSS) seeking anticipatorv bail to the petitionerl,r :cused No.4 in Crime No.32 of 2025 on the file of prohibition ,r -rd Bxcise police Station, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad, registered I rr rhe offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(Cl of the Narcotic Drugs ald Psychotropic Substances Act, 198,1 for short ,NDpS Act').

2. The case of the prosecution is that o;i

16.04.2025 at 12: 15 PM, based on reliable information r :garding ganja transportation on a Honda Scooty Registraticr No. TS 13 EY 0344, the Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspe: ,or, along with staff and panchas, conducted a route watch rr :ar i?ani Avanti Bai Statue, Amlapur, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad, nealwhile, one person arrived on the said Scooty carrying a : eg. Upon being stopped and questioned, he identified himself iLr Thakur Akash Singh - accused No. I and with his consent. searched ald a plastic bag containing B brov.r he vehrcle rvas L tape-wrapped 2 bundles of dry ganja was found. Meanwhile, two individuals on another Scooty fled the scene, abandoning their vehicle, which contained 2 more similar bundles. A total of 10 bundles weighing approximately 25.230 kg. of dry ganja was seized under a cover of panchanama. During interrogation, accused No.1 reveafed the involvement of several other accused and also confessed about selling of ganja sachets with his mother at Rs.500 each. Basing.on the same, the present complaint was lodged.

3. Heard Mr.Umesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Syed yasar Mamoon, Iearned Additional Public Prosecutor lor the respond ent- State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has not committed alieged offences and she was fa-lsely implicated in the said crime soiely basing upon the confession statement of the other accused a,d the same is not permissible under law, especially as per the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, tg72 (Section 23(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). He further submitted that the alleged contraband was seized from the I I I I t I I I l l l l I l l l l J possession of accused No.i and the petitioner was implicated as an acclrsed solely on the ground that she i ; the mother of accused No.1. The allegation made against 1 re petitioner is that she helped accused No. 1 in committing L re said offence. The police have not followed the mancl I .ory procedure prescribed under the provisions of the l' )PS Act while conducting search, recording of panchanama : nd seizure. He also submitted that in the. F.i.R., the police mt Ltioned that the seized contraband was 1.522 kg. of dry ganja, whereas in the remand case diary, they mentioned that the - rtal contrabald seized in the present crime was 25.230 kg. lr the absence of any material.

5. He further submitted that accused No s . and 3 in the present crime were arrested oo L6.04.2025 tnd 30.04.2025 and this Court was granted bail uide Crl.P.N:s.7B1i of 2O2S and 6641 of 2025 on02.O7.2025 arld 18.06.2125 respectively. The petitioner is not having any criminal antec:dents and she is suffering with health problems. The petitic ner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and also abide by the T 4 conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court. Hence, the petitioner may be granted alticipatory baii.

6. Per contra, learned Additional public prosecutor submitted that petitioner has committed grave offence. The police seized the contraban d r.e. , 25.230 kg. of dry ganj a, which is commercial quantity. The petitioner has been absconding since the date of registration of crime i.e.,

16.04.2025. He furthcr submitted that mere grant of regular bail to the other accused is not a ground to consider the claim of the petitioner for anticipatorS, bail, especially on the ground that .the contraband seized in the present crime is commercial quantity. 7 . He further submitted that the police, after due investigation and enquiry, furnished seizure report stating that a total of 25.230 kg. of contraband was seized. He contended that mere mention of 1.522 kg. in the F.l.R. is not a ground, as the F.I.R is not a conclusive report. The police, after conducting search and seizure, found that the totat quantity of contraband seized under M. 1 to M. 10 is 25.230 kgs. of ganja, which is commercial quantity and the investigation is under iffiEE!B{!+l"!.'F!!tr :..1r :6 -_-.--/ - .l' I I I I I I I I r / // ) progress. As per the provision of Section 37 r I NDpS Act, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail B. Having considered the rival submissicr s made by the respective parties ar-rd after perusal of the ma, r rial avaiiable on record, it reveals that police seized 25.230 kg. rf galj a through M. 1 to M.10 in the present crime. As pe r the Schedule attached to the NDPS Act pertaining to I anja, 1 kg. is considered to be small quantity and 2O l<,1 is commercial quantitl,. The seized contraband t .e. , 25.23C kg. of ganja, as per the provisions of the NDPS Act, is a comr iercial quantity. The record further reveals that accused Nr,r .1 and 3 were granted regular bail by this Court uide Crl. ,.Nos.7B 1 1 and 6641 of 2025 dated O2.O7.2025 and 18.06. t )25 taking into consideration of their incarceration period.

9. At this stage, it is pertinent to observe hat the Courts exercise caution while dealing with anticipatt,r y bail petitions in NDPS cases due to the serious nature o ' these offences. Granting arrticipatory bait in regular marner r: Lay hamper the investigation, allow the accused to abscond. rnd undermine public interest in preventing and controlling th€ se offences. 6 l.-.:

10. 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. ln the case of Tarabai vs. State of Maharashtral, tl-re Honble Supreme Court observed that the grartt of anticipatory bail in NDPS cases may hamper the investigation and enable the accused to destroy evidence. Similarty, in the case of Kishore Samrite vs. State of Uttar Pradesh2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that anticipatory bail should not be granted in NDPS cases as a matter of course. li. In light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements and statr.rtory 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 criminal petition to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. ' (1983) 2 scc 68 ' (2012) to scc 632 w 7 Miscellaleous applications, pending if l ry, shall stand closed I 1 SD/. AHIIII iD ABDULLA KHAN ASS I ;TANT REGISTRAR - - - SECTION OFFICER -'-'i' I //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The First Additional Session Judge at Hyderabad 2. The Station House Officer. Prohibition & Excise Station t) roolpet,Hyderabad 3. One CC to SRI UTMESH SINGH Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC to SRI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [Ot,t rCl 5. Two CD Copies AG/gh t I ) ' l'.' \' M:)) t l) ,i ,/ OJ -:r t Dr ',',,-.\.//, HIGH COURT DATED:0410812025 ORDER CRLP.No.9489 of 2025 CRLP IS DISMISSED rlu ?1