The High Court · 2025

9tate of relanggn^a, Rep. by its Public prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana,. Hig! court Buililings, Hyderabad, Througi the Station House Officer, Police Station Cyberabad N-arcotics. ... RespondenUCom plainant Petition under Section 482 ot BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/Accused tto. A in F. l. R. 812025, Dated 26- 08- 2025 of Cyberabad Narcotic Police Station for the atteged offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 2O(bXiiXA), 20(bxii)(B), 27(b), ind 29 of the NDPS Act, 'l985in the event of arrest. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon-perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr MADAS BHARATH CHANDRA, Advocate for the petitioner and D.ARUN KUMAR, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the sole Respondent The Court made the following: ORDER ---7 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13459 of 20125 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSSJ for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.8 in crime No.S of 2025 of cyberabad Narcotic Police Station, TGANB.

2. The case of the prosecution was that on 25.08.2025, the lnspector of Police, Cyberabad Narcotic Police Station, received credible information that certain persons were engaged in the possession and sale of Ganja and DG weed at a premises in Suraram, Jeedimetla. Acting on the information, the police conducted a raid and apprehended four accused persons, seizing 1150 grams of Ganja, 47 grams of OG Weed, a weighing machine, plastic boxes, ziplock covers, and several mobile Phones.

3. Heard Sri Madas Barath Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun 2 sKs,J Crl.P.No.13459 ot2ol25 Kumar, learned Additional Public appearing on behalf of tJ:e respondent - State .4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was innocent and falsely implicated solely on the basis of the confessional statements of co-accused, which are inad.missible in evidence in view of the judgry-e1rj il Tofan singh v. state o.f Tamil Nadu. He further submitted that there was no recovery, seizure, or documentary evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged offences, and his name surfaced only on hearsay. The petitioner was a student of Mahindra University with no criminal antecedents, and his custodial interrogation was unnecessary. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant 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 petitioner is drug peddlers. He further submitted that the investigation is in progress and if the petitioner is released on bail, at this stage, he may tamper 3 sKs,J Crl.P.No.13459 of 2o25 with the evidence and may threaten the witnesses. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the limited grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case solely basing on the confession made by co-accused in whose possession contraband was seized and that petitioner is no way concerned with the offence punishable under Sections 8 (c) read with 2O(bXiilE) of NDPS Act, as no contraband was seized from his possession, whereas, it is the specific stand of learned Additional Public Prosecutor that petitioner is actively involved with other accused in his illegal activities.

7. At this stage, it is pertinent to observe that the Courts 1 \ 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.

8. The Honble Supreme Court has consistently held that anticipatory bail should not be granted in NDPS cases as a I / 7 4 sKs,J Crl.P.No.13459 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 Bengall the Hon'lcle 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-arrest bail to the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. \ \ To, /,TRUE COPY// SD/. AHMED ABDULLAH [E4T AssrsrANfiEGibTiian r' ' 6 SECTION OFFICER

4. 5. TheSpecialJudicialFirstClasslvlagistratecumVthAddl.JcJcumVAddl ilx."lflf,l#,f:?*:gtr+ {li *u'.'^r:sst ri:g 3t"'[ o n rG An'[ - +*hH ,r",,,."j8[Ifl$,:]":i'e?:fiirt court ror the state or reransana, at 8,":"S3# J?T^,43f, BHARATH CHANDRA, Advocate TOPUC] Two CD CoPies fA- HIGH COURT DATED: 0311112025 ORDER CRLP.N o.13459 of 2025 'i ir u1 - i: i_:I.. : .* l't t -,,i..i-'i\..- \' r\ \'ri '--. ..\'.. . ..\ ,Jl \r ;: 2o Er[ 2ffi ..- 'i l,IL )f i) -* Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is Dismissed. (A- h 1