High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, through S.H.O., Balanagar Proh. And Excise Station, Medchal Malkajgiri District, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioners herein on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with C.O.R.l.lo. 77 of 2025 of Balanagar Proh. and Excise Station, Medchal MalkaiTiri District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri SNIGDHA KATTA, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the sole Respondent The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJ ANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1O329 ol 2ol12 i ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Se<r tor, 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2O23 (for :;l ort BNSS] lor grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, wht' as accused Nos.3 and 4 in C.O.R.No.77 of 2025 c re arrayed ' Balanagar Prohibition an d Excise Station, Medchal-Malk4j giri District.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 2lj

06.2025 at 8:05 PM, the STDF team, acting on reliable : conducted a raid at the location mentioned in (l rformation, llumn No.2 and detected a case of illegal possession and sale r f dry ganja. The details of the seized contraband were recordtr in Column No. lO. The accused persons were arrested, and heir details n,ere furnished in Columns No.S to 9. A case rpz s registered under cover of panchanama vide COR No. 77 t2O25. Th'e original case papers, along with the accused pe tsons, were produced before the Court for judicial remald A further report was to be submitted upon complet on of the investigation. 2 sts,J CrLP.ro.lO3?9 of 2()25

3. Heard Ms. Snigdha Katta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as \rell as Sri Syed yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. karned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petilioners are innocent ald falsely implicated in the case and that the Police relied on a coerced confessional statement from a co-accused. He further submitted that the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a prima facie offence against the petitioners and that the confession of the co-accused is inadmissible as evidence. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners by ailowing this cnminal petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the petitioners are drug peddlers. He further submittod that t]1e investigation is in progress and if the petitioners are released on 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. 3 sKs,"J Cd-P. n ,.1l)329 of 2()25

6. Having regard to the rival submissions rrLi de and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the limited grievalce of learned counsel for the p :titioners is that the petitioners were falsely implicated in th: case solely basing on the confession made by co-accuse< in whose possession contraband was seized and that petitic ners are no way concerned with the offence punishable undt:r Sections 8 (c) read with 2o(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, as no cont 'aband was seized from their possession, whereas, it is the s1 ecifrc stand of learned Additional Public Prosecutor that pet tioners are actively involved with other accused in his illegal rt :tivities.

7. At this stage. it is perlinent to observe the.l the Courts exercise caution while dealing with anticipatory : dI petitions in NDPS cases due to the serious nature of the :e offences. Granting anticipatory bail in regular mErnner ma]r hamper the investigation, allow the accused to abscond, al,J undermine public inte rest in preventing and controlling thest, rffences.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistent y held that anticipatory bail should not be granted in NDPS cases as a matter of routine, as the same may hamper the i rvestigation and enable the accused to destroy evidence. Ful :her, in the r i I I I I i l -,:. .-i:. 4 sxs,.J Crl.P.Ito. 10329 of 2(,25 case of Ananrl SK v. State of Slest Bengal I the Hon,ble Suprerne Court observed that glant of anticipatory bail in cases involving NDPS is a very serious issue.

9. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that ttre 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, as such, there are no merits in this criminal petition to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners and the same is liable to be dismissed. lO. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed SD/- U.SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /,TRI.JE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Additional Junior Civil Judge cum Xlll A&itional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kukatpally.

2. The Station House Officer, Proh. & Excise Station, Ealanagar, Iv{edchal Malkajgiri District.

3. One CC to SIv{T. SNIGDHA KATTA Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, HQh Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:2510812025 :F ) l; tr' t i 7 JA}l 2u6 t Es z 6)I t ORDER GRLP.No.10329 of 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISIiED i I I I I I I I I I i i I i I oD )r)f lo>