The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Station House Officer, P.S.Ghanpu-(M), JayashanakarBhupllplty Dlstrict, Through the Public Prosecutor, High Court High Court for the State of Telangana ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to kindly set aside the dismissal order dated 2210912025 in Crl. M.P. No. 32112025 by learned Principal District and sessions judge JayashankarBhupalpally District. insofar as it relates to the petitioner/Accused No. 2 and grant anticipatory bail in connection with Cr{ No. 19412025 of Ghanpu(M) Police Station This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kodari Mallikarjun ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Sole Respondent . The Court made the following: ORDER D THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13275 OF 2025 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner/A.2 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.194 of 2025 of Ghanpur Police Station, Jayashankar Bhupalpally. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 8(c) rlw.2o(bl(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short'NDPS Act).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.07.2025 on credible information that a person was transporting dry ganja to the outskirts of Gandhinagar village of Ghanpur lulandal for selling the same to needy people, the police proceeded to the spot and found a person moving in suspicious manner and on seeing them he tried to escape, but the police caught him. On enquiry he confessed that he is in possession of one packet of dry ganja in his bag and on examination, the police found dry ganja leaves and flowers emanating pungent smell consisting of

1.039 kgs. Hence, the same was seized from the possession of -2- -) accused and complaint was lodged basing on which the police registered the case against the accused for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri Kodari Mallikarjun, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that

4. petitioner is falsely implicated in this case basing on the confession of accused No.1 which is inadmissible in evidence. He further submitted that the alleged seizure was made from the possession of A.1 and nothing was recovered from the petitioner herein and there is no evidence to show that the petitioner is purchasing, transporting or selling ganja. Further, A.1 in this crime is already released on regular bail vide Crl.M.P.No.287 of 2025 dated 22.05.2025. Hence, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner is a drug peddler and he is also involved in other crime. He further submitted that investigation is in progress and if the petitioner is granted pre- arrest bail, at this stage, he may tamper'*,ith the evidence and : l : i : i i: I i i i I t I I I I I I I I I ! t -3- may threaten the witnesses. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the present petition is filed seeking grant of pre- arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 194 of 2o2s of Ghanpur Police Station, Jayashankar Bhupalpally, for the alleged offences under the NDPS Act. Though petitioner contended that he is not involved in this case, it is not the stage to decide the same. At this stage, it is pertinent to observe that the courts exercise caution while dealing with anticipatory bail petitions in NDPS cases due to the serious nature of these offences. Granting anticipatory bail in regular manner may hamper the investigation, allow the accused to abscond, and undermine public interest in preventing and controlling these offences. .,

7. The Hon'ble supreme court has consistently held that anticipatory bail should not be granted in NDpS cases as a 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 slest Bengalr the Hon'ble Supreme court observed that grant of anticipatory bail in cases involving NDPS is a very serious issue. I Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (crl.)No. t262112024 dated tg.og.2024 -4- 8' In the right of the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that grant of pre-arrest ba, at a stage when the investigation is still in progress, may impede the investigative process and potentiaily prejudice the case of prosecution, as there are no merits in this criminar petition to grant pre_ arrest bail to the petitioner and the same is riabre to be .such, dismissed. 9' Accordingly, the criminar petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall appear before the trial court and file a regular bail application and on liling of such application, the trial court is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Miscellaneous petitions, if ?ny, pending shall stand closed. SD/. P ANT R KRISHNA // //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER ly District Bhupalapall erabad v To, 1 2 3.

4. 5 f{r HIGH COURT DATED i2911012025 ORDER CRLP.N o.13275 of 2025 1,15. ST4=*. (, t 19 BEc ruf t Dn^ ,:".v(-H irO t r : C, ! 0 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED % co((e/tr 5*