The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana Hyderabad PS Cyberabad Narcotics Police Station. ..RESPONDENT Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Station House Officer, Cyberabad Narcotics Police Station, Cyberabad to release the Petitioner on Bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.2l2O25 of Cyberabad Narcotics Police Station, in the interest of justice This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Vishal Neelagai, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJI NA CRIMINAL PETITION No. I 1472 of 2O2 ) ORAL ORDER: Seeking the Court to enlarge the petit()rl :r accused No. 15 in Crime No.2 ol 2025 of Cyberabad Narc r Station, Telangana Anti-Narcotics Bureau, registrr oflences punishable under Sections 8 (c), 20(b)ii 22(bl, 27(a\,27(b) and 29 of Narcotics Drugs & I'r Substances Rules, 1985 (for short'NDPS Act'), or tics Police ed lor the (A), 22(a), ychotropic pre-arrest bail, the present Criminal Petition is fi1ed

2. The brief lacts of the case are that on 07.1 7 .2025, on reliable information, police laid a trap between 19: 19:30 hours and caught hold of the accused anc )O hours to seized the contraband ol 10 grams of cocaine, 1 6 grams o1' I :stasy pi1is,

3.2 grams of OG weed ganja, as such the accuserl person was taken into custody and the police registered a cas: against the accused uide Crirne No.2 of 2025 for the above sarc offences.

3. Heard Sri Vishal Neelagiri, learned counsel I )peanng on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D Arr.n Kur rar' learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for resporr ent State' 2 sKs,J Crl.P.No,11472 of2025

4. I-earned counsel for the petitioner subrnitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case based only on the s[atement of a co-accused and that the petitioner had no connection with the seized contraband and was mechanically arrayed as an accused without any independent material. He further submitted that the allegations under Section 27 A of the NDPS Act were not supported by evidence, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Bombay High Court had clarified that mere financial transactions or concealment of drug use did not amount to "financing illicit trafhc" ald that the petitioner had no criminal antecedents, strong roots in society, and was the sole caretaker of his ailing parents, thereby ruling out the possibility of absconding or reoffending. Therefore, he prayed the Court 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 by contending that the allegations against the petitioner were serious in nature and that the investigation is in progress and if the petitioner is released on bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the evidence and may threaten the SI(S'J Crl.P.N< . 1472 of 2025 witnesses. Therefore, he prayed the Court to t I rmiss the criminai Petition

6. Having regard to lhe rival submissions mrL le at-rd on going through the material placed on record' it is :ioted that the iimitcd grievance of learned counsel for the r:titioner is that the petitioner is no way concerned with th': offence as the Invesligating Of{icer has not ic lowed the u,hereas, it is the specihc stancl rl learned alleged and procedure, i ) Ar]drtionalPublicProsecutorthatpetitionerisacti,lyinvolved with other accused in his illegal activities

7. At this stage, it is pertinent to observe that exercise caution while dealing with anticipatory ir in NDPS ca ses clue to the serious nature of tl'r : Granting anticipatory bail in regular manner ma1' investigation, allow the accused to abscond' ani public interest in preventing and controlling thest the Courts -il petitrons ;e offences. eamper the undermine r ffetrce s.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consister 1 anticipatory bail should not be granted in NDPj matter of routine, as the same may hamper the and enable the accused to destroy evidence' F'11 ], held that CASCS S A nvestigation ther, in the 4 sKs,J ctl.P.No. 1 14'12 of 2025 a) case of Anarul SK v. State of West Bengal t the Honble Supreme Court observed that grant 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 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, as such, there are no merits in this criminal petition to grant pre-arrcst bail to the petitioner and the same is liable to be d ism isscd .

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. 'p"+i+i-, eor q'-iJ l'-t- +o sv P"'t ad) tq'oq. Zotx , t L)u" 126)-t )o2! //TRUE COPY// SDI C. DEEPIKA ISTANT REGIST CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Special Judicial First Class Magistrate cum Vth Additional Junior Civil Judge Cum V Additional Judicial Magistrate, at LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad.

2. The Station House Officer, cyberabad Narcotics Police Station, Cyberabad 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad (our)

4. One CC to Srl. Vishal Neelagari, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies AS/SA HIGH COURT DATED:1810912025 ORDER CRLP.No.11472 of 2025 0 :j L::i. ;,[ffi ',i Ot:t('.\-.'. r--/ CR!M!NAL PETITION IS DISMISSED q