Prosecutor High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1O862 of 2o25 ORDER: This tlriminal Petition is filed under Scctio n 482 of Bharatiyer Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (k.r shorr 'BNSS,) for granl oi pre-arres[ bail to the petitioner, v'l o is :trrayed as accuscd No 2 in Crime No.57 of 2O2S of l,r.rhibition and Excise Polict: Station, Dhoolpet.

2. Thc b:ief facts of the case are that on 03 .OT .,2025 at about 11.55 a.m., the P & ESI and staff of SHO Dhoolpet conducte<l a raid at the place mentioned in Crjrne No.2 and detected illcgal possession and sale of dn ganja. The contrabancl '"r.as seized under a panchanama, zrnd one woman accused rvas; arrested, while one male accuserl absconded. The seized rnaterial, original case papers, an:l the arrestcd woman acc'LLsed were handed over to the SHO, Dhoolpet. Based on thr: original papers, a case was regis tr:rccl, and the woman acr:tLsed u'as produccd before the t rial Court for judicial remand. 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1OE62 of 2O25

3. Heard Dr. Vijayalaxmi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as rvell as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf ol the responden[ - State.

4. I-earned counsel for the petitioner submittcd that the petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated in the case and that the Police relied on a coerced conlessional statement from a co-accused. He further submitted that the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a prima facie offencc against the pctitioner and that the confession of the co accused is inadmissible as evidence, as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadul. Thcrefore, he prayed the Cor-rrt to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioncr is drug peddlers. He further submitted that the investigation is in progress and if the petitioner is released on bai1, at this stage, he may tamper ' vat'tu/sclotgt /zozo I I I l 3 SKS,J Crl.l'.Ho. 1O862 of 2025 with the evicl€nce and may threaten the witnessr:s. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition

6. Having rcgard to the rival submissions rnade and on going through thc matcrial placed on record, it is noted that the limited gricvance of learned counsel for tht petitioner is that the petitioncr was falsely' implicated in lI c case solely basing on thc confession made by co accuserl in whose possession cc,ntraband r,",ars seized and that pctitioner is no way concernecl with the offence punishable unclcr Sections 8 (c) read with 2O(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, as no contraband was seized from hrs possession, whereas, it is the spr:cihc stand of learned Additional Public Prosecutor that petitiont:r is actively involved with other accused in his illegal activitics.

7. At this stage, it is pcrtinent to observe thr1. the Courts exercise caution while dealing u,ith anticipatorv bail petitions in NDPS case s due to thc serious nature of tlrese offences. Granting anticipatory bail in regular manner may hamper the investigation, allow the accused to abscond, ar:d undermine public interes in preventing and controlling thes: offences.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistcrrtly held that I anticipatory bail should not be granted in NDPS cases as a 4 SKS,J Crl.P.t{o.lOE62 of 2025 matter of routine, as the same may hamper the investigation and enable the accused to destroy evidence. Further, in the case of Anarul SK v. State of West Bengalz the Hon'blc Supreme Court observed that grant of anticipatory bail in cases involving NDPS is a vcry serious issue.

9. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of thc opinion that the grant of pre-arrest bail at a stage when the investigation is still in progress, may impede the investigative process and porentially prejudice the case of the prosecution, as such, there are no merits in this criminal petition to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed. I O. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pcnding, shall stand closed To Sd/. M. NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGIS ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The I Additional Drstrict and Senior Judge,-Hlderabad . ,. +il;'si;td; nor." ori"Jr.lpibrtioiti""n'& ixcise Dhoolpet Police station' ' Petition for Special Leave to Appeat (C d.)No.7262712O24 dated 19.09.2024 Hvderabad. i J ' t 't' -E

3. Two CCs ro the Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad. (OUT) 4 One CC to t\,,11s.. DR.J VtJAYALAXNi't, Advocate iOpUCl 5. Two CD Copies RC/PR \ck- HIGH COURT DATED: 0410912025 ORDER CRLP.No.10862 of 2025 -:-:r-,: s,o-,1.1'.. Io ( Il, 0 4 il[t/ 2025 t ')t.'L'" ^ ,-,, l. -,' Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is Dismissed. b cRcN q-.^a' iq\'-