Anarul SK v. State of Wt st BengalL lhe Hon'blc Suprtlrtt

Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimlnal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the Petitioner/Accused No. 4 the Crime Nc. 321 ot 2024 dated 03/08/2024 in the event of Arrest on the file of P.S Narsampet, Warangal for the offences punishable under section 8(C) r/w 20(b)(iiXc) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the ltrlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Smt SP Durga Gayatri, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. D. Arun Kumar, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1 The Court made the following: ORDER i i I I ! I i I I i I I I I I i I I I i i I I I I ! I I l THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE 6. $u.I iNA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11241 of 2Oi',,' ORDER: This ('r'rnirrrrl Petirion is Illecl for grzlnt of ll { ..rrr('st bail to t hc petitloner ',.r,tro is arral,ed zts accuscd N( . in Crinrt. No..32I / 2{J25 beftrrc the N:rrsampe t Police Stirtior lvcier:rbitcl, rr:gisterecl lr,r' the olfcnces punishablc under Secrir rs 8(c) rclrrl witli 20(b)(ii)1c) of NDPS Acl.

2. Thc hricf f.ir-ts of thc case are that on 3.8. l()2.1, rl,hilL-' patrolling, the Sub Inspector of Police, Nars:.r rpct. Policc Station, q,ars conclucting vehicle checking at Khal r .rpllr Cross lloads, Nirrsilmpel To\\n, and u'hen he stoppe<l i. ;ehicle ancl lound u,hi<:l-r dcsccnded zu-rd fled away on seeirri the policcl part)'. In thc second car, the petitioner was l( Jnd sittlng l>cside accuscci No.1 and on seeing the police, t[ -: pt:titioncr tlcsccndecl irom tl're car and accused No.1 rvas :1, 1;rehenderl. On enquirv. accused Nos. I and 2 disclose,l that they possessccl ganja in the cars, due to which accus,) lNos.3 and pctiLioner f-icd away. Thcrcafter, the police seiz,: 6() kgs r>f ganla from first car, and 68 packets from second c ,rr. Pleading 2 that petitioner is no wav connected to the offence as alleged, this crimrnal petition is liled

3. Heard Smt SP Durga Gayatri, learned counscl for petitioner, and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1 - State.

4. Learned counsel for the peti[ioner submitted that the pctitioner denies all allegations and claims f.rlse implicatiot-r, having committed no offence. She further submitled thal thc complaint allegations lacks to mcntion the specific role of petrtioner, yet he was implicated, solely on the basis of conlessional statement of other accused. With no connection to the alleged offencc, the petitioner fears arre st, harming his reputation, therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre arrest bail to the pctitioner by allowrng this criminal petltion.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submrssions made by the learned counsel for the peLitioner stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He further subrnitted that the commercial quantity of 60kgs of ganja is involved in this case. 3 Therefore, rvhiie advocating that the rna:l-' requlres investigation. he praved the Court to dismiss e crimir-ra1 pctrllon

6. Having regard to the rir.al submissions n i de and on going through the material placed on record, it is notecl that the contcntion of learned counsel for petitionor s that the case against the pe titioner is lalse and ficlitiour; i s there arc no specilic scr of allegations leveled agaiust th,i petrLioncr., whercas, thc learned Additional Public Prosecuttir pposes the pctition, cilinq that commcrcial quantity of ganjeur rs seized in the case. That being so, at this stage, it is pertrt 3nt to note Section 37 of the NDPS Act, whicl-r reads as undt:t: "37. Offences to be cognizablc and non-bailabl: (1) Notrrithstanding anything contained in the (l le of Crininal Proceciure, 197:\ (2 of 1974), -(a) ev Iy offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishablt: br 1[offur.rces under section 19 or section 24 or ser t rn 27 A and also for offences involving comme -r ial quantitv] shall l]e rclcased on bail or on his c vn bond unlcss 4 (i) the Public opportunit! to Prosccu tor opposc the has been given an application for such release, ancl (ri) \\ hcre the Public l'rosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds lor believing that he is not guilt\-of such offence and that he is not likely to commit anv offence rvhile on bail, (2) The linritations on granting of bail speciired in r:lause (b) ol sub-scction (l) are irl addit)on to the limitations under the Code oI Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 ot 1974) or an-\ other larv for the time being in force on granting of bail-"

7. From the abovc extracted portion, it is clear that Section 37 ol the NDPS Act mandates that offences involvir-rg commcrcial quantities be non-bailable, requiring rcasonable grounds to believc the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit lurther ollences while on bail' Given the serious allegations against the petitioner, this Court is not satished that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 are met. That apart, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently 8. held that anticipatory bail should not be granted in NDPS cascs as a matter o[ routine, as the same may hamper the 5 investigzrIion and enable the accused to destro' cvidence. F urthe r. in ,l'rc crr;c o[ Anarul SK v. State of Wt st BengalL lhe Hon'blc Suprtlrtt: Court obscrled that grant ol ' r tic ipaton' bail in cascs invo)virrg NDPS is ir very serious issu r

9. In ligl-rt ol t}'re above drscussion, this Cor r t is of thc I opinion that thc gr-:rnt of prc :lrrcst bail at a stzr": u'llcn thc investigation is still in progrcss, rnay impcdc t[-rc ili'estif]ative process ancl itotcnlialll prt)r-tdict Ihe case o1' th': 1 l(tsi ('ution. as such. thcae arre Ilo meriis irr this criminal pet t:r1l Io granL pre-arrcsl b:til to thc petitioncr and thc sarne i: iablc to be clismisscd. 1O. Ar:corciinglr'. this Cnn-rinal Pctition is dismi: : ::d Miscellaneorts applic:'rti<>rts, if any perrdinl,, sharll stand closed 'p'r:r"r.,., (a sRe'ieu +o I ele4 ( oJ ) n o tTbzt f .,.,t\ a'ld tq -oc -2 o" ' //TRUE COPY// SD/. C. DEEPIKA ASSII TANT REGISTRAR e SECTION OFFICER

1. .The Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Narsan F 3t' 2 ihe Station House Officer, Police Station Narsampet, \ i 'angal 5. f*o -cCi (our) 4. bne CC to Smt. M Madhavi latha, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangz ra, Hyderabad- . To, P ASi SA HIGH COURT DATED:1610912025 ORDER CRLP.No.11241 of 2025 'i :\'. ,: i:i. ffi t. I CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED I