The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of BNSS of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner in the event of his arrest in connection with F.l. R. No 8 of 2025 d1.2610812025 on the file of Cyberabad Narcotics Police Station, Hyderabad This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lVemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri ABHISHEK N ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Arun Kumar Dodla the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondents. The Court made the following: ORDER '..;. ._l!.-+€:!!=rc.€7 THE HONOURABLE SMT, JUSTICE K. f;I T.JANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14()99 of 2(25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is hled under S: :rion 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (lcn ;hort 'BNSSJ for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, v,.[ro is a:rayed as accused No.7 in Crime No.S ol 2O2S of Cybe r:'l ad Narcotics Police Station, TG Anti-Narcotics Bureau (TGANIl

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.Ot .2025, based on credible information that certain individuals r ged between 20 and 30 years were gathering and delivering. : weed to their customers, the authorities r < rnja ancl OG nducted an immediate inspection. During the operation, ar: used Nos. 1 to 4 were found in possession of narcotic subst r nce. A case was registered against them based on the I ndings. The petitioner has been arrayed as accused No. 7, r olely on the basis of confessional statements made by the o t rer accused, I alleging that he is involved in drug peddling.

3. Heard Sri N. Abhishek, learned counsel z ppearing on behalf of the peLitioner as well as Sri Arun Krr nar Doddla, I 2 sKs,J Crl.P,l{o,14099 of 2025 learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. L,earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent, aged about 21 years, and has been falsely implicated in the case. Even after registration of the case, the petitioner voluntarily appeared belore the police and cooperated with the investigation due to apprehension of arrest. He further contended that the allegations in the FIR do not disclose a pima facie offence against the petitioner and that the confession of the co accused is inadmissible in evidence. 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 stating that the petitioner is a drug peddler and the alieged offence falls under the provisions of the NDPS Act, which necessitates custodial interrogalion. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. Having regard to the rrval 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 i :.f e.,?;7-1-"5!Er-!Fr/ " ./. ./ 3 sKs,J Crl.l ,No.14099 of 2025 that the petitioner was falsely implicated in t ^ r case solely basing on the confession made by co-accu; rd in u,hose possession contraband was seized and that 1t,: way concerned with the offence punishabJr ltioner ls no urlder the provisions of NDPS Act, as no contraband was se ized from his possession, whereas, it is the specific star_.< of learned Additional Public Prosecutor that petitionc: is actively involved with other accused in his illegai actrvitir r

7. At this stage, it is pertinent to observe tl-i t the Courts exercise caution while dealing with anticipatory )ail petitions in NDPS cases due to the serious nature of tlr :se offences. Granting anticipatory bail in regular manner m; \ han'rper the inr.estigation, allorv the accused to abscond, arr, L undermine public interest in preventing and controlling these offences. 8, The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consister.r ly held that anticipatory bail should not be granted in NDI,I cases as a matter of routine, as the same may hamper the nvestigation and enable the accused to destroy evidence. p:ll case of Anarul SK v. State of West Bengal ther, in the the Hon'ble I Petition forSpecial LeavetoAppeal (C d.)No.72621./2024 dated 19.09. 124 \ ! $ l l l i 4 sr(s,J Crt.P.No.1.rc99 of 2O2S 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. 1O. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed To Sd/- S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRARa SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY//

1. The First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ivledchal-N,4alkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

2. The Speicail Judical First Class Magistrate-cum-V Addl.Junior Civil Judge- cum-V Addl. Judicial Magistrate AT HYDERABAD L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy Diskict. (TGANB) Hyderabad

3. The SHO Cyberabad Narcotics Police Station, T.G.Anti Narotics Bureau 4. One CC to SRl. ABHISHEK N Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two Copies to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of 6. Two CD Copies Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Pk/pr +g HIGH COURT DATED:1 311112025 CRLP.No.14099 of 2025 ..\ -.,,.. .. - \ 'i.. t; I l.l :,1 7W ' ,\,r...-. .. CRIMINAL PEITITION IS DISMISSED q 4 a"\ \