The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. IJ JJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.L4471. of 2it t2S ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed uncle; :,, c'tion .182 ot' F3haratiya N:rg:rrik Suraksha Sanhita. 2023 ti t shor[ 'I3NSS') frrr grant ol pre-arrest bail to thc petit-ioner', r,.,i r : is arrar ecl as accused No.6 in Crime No. I LO ol 2025 belirr r rhe W:rzcr.riu l)olice St:rtion, Mulugu District, registered Io; 1he ofli:,tr.i s punishable rrndt:r Scctions 8(c) read r.r'ith ?C[ir i i l(.'l ri Lrl -'( r ,,1 thc NDPS Act.

2. Thc bricf facts of the case are ttrat thc ) ,licc r er,civr.cl credible inform:rtion that certain persons agec i --ts'r:cn 1 () ro 30 ycars u,cre trilnsporting ganja frorn Bhadrzrr.lr rianr 1or,r.:rr-rls ()odavarikhanl ()n motorcyclcs. Basing on tl- i ; ltlf{)rma 1 i()r), the polce organized a trap with panch witnessc an,.; rt r:iLrr-s team and intercepted seven individuals on fol i molorcyck:s near Mandapaka village. Two persons werc .rI) ri-ehonderl :rt the spot and five fled, leaving behind bags. U; rn search, ir total of 29.829 kgs of ganja packed in brown I l)ed pacl(ots was seized from the possession of accused Nos.I and 2 and 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.L447l of 2025 from the bags abandoned by the fleeing persons. Vehicles, mobilc phoncs, :rnd the seized contraband wcre taken into r:usLocl1' and a case was registered urrdcr ttre relevant pror.isions of thc NDPS Act.

3. Heard Sri M. Ravi, learned counsel appearing on behalf r>f the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learncd Aclditional Pr-rblic Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the rcspondcnt - Stri te.

4. I-earrccl counsel tbr the petitioner submitted that the pctit.ioner had nri rolc in the alleged offence and was neithcr .rpprehended at the spot nor named in the seizure panchanan-ra and that no contraband was recovered from the petitioner and the only material relied upon by the prosecution was the alleged confessional statements o[ co- accuscd, which were inadmissible under Section 23 of rhe Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. He further submitted that the petitioner was a 20-year-old student with no criminal antecedents and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary since no reco\rery remained pending from him. Therefore, he I I I I 3 SI(s,J Crl I No-14471 of 2()25 prayed thc court to grant pre-arrest baii to rh,. l)ctitioner by allowing tlrrs r'rirninal petition.

5. On t hc othcr hand, le arned Additional PrLl r r: l)rosecutor opposed thc submissions made by the lcarned r r Lrnscl for the petitioner stating that the allegations levele'r agzLinst the petitioner arc serious in nature. Further, th< invt stigation was not yr-.t completed. At this stagc, !{rantinr 'r[ prc-arrest bail to thc pctitioncr does not arise. Thereforc. i :' prrrr,ed thc Court to disrniss the crimit'ral petition.

6. In thc ligl-rt of the submissions madr r-v lroth thc lezrrned counsel and a pcrusal of thc materi;l .rvar la ble on rccord, it is notecl that the limited grievance of Ir.,rr ncd counsel for the pctitioner is that the petitioner w:rs fals,: in the casc solcly basing on the confession I '' inrplicated radt by co accused in u,hose possession contraband was sc i r:d and thal petitioner is no u,ay coltcerned u,ith the a I r qcd offer-rcc punishable under NDPS Act, as no contrabanj was seized from his possession, whereas, it is the sper..r ir: stand of learned Additional Public Prosecutor that petitiorr l is actively involved with other accused in his illegal activitie :; 4 sr(s,J Crl.P.No. 14471 of 2()25

7. At this stage , it is pertinent to noLe that in cases arising uncier tirc NDPS Act, the Court is required to excrcise great cautir.rn u'hilc cr.rnsidering a prayer for anticipatory bail, keepirrg in vicu, the nature o[ allegations, gravity of the offcnr:e, ancl the necessity of custodial interrogation for a fair :rnd effr:ctive investigation. The Hon'b1e High Court, as afliuncci trv thc Hon'ble Supremc Court in Dinesh Chander v. State of Haryanal, has observed that where the investigation matcrizrls discl.rse a pirna facie link of the accused with the a llegc'ci r.r l-le nce, such as his involvement being reflected lrom sL.ttcmclr ts of co-a<:cu.se d, electronic communication, or finarcial transactions, the grant of pre-arrest protection would seriousl.r' irermper the process of investigation. The scttled position of l.lrv is that anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a [r.r1tt: r o[ routine or on mere assertion of innocence, particul:rrly u'hen the investigation is at a nascent stage and the rolc oI lhe pctitioner requires thorough examination. In such circumstances, the Court may rightly decline to extend the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail, leaving it open to the accused to surrender before the jurisdictional Court and 'sLp (crt.) r':o. 9540 of 2025 5 SKS,J No.14471of2O2S Crl seek regular bail, rvhich shall be considered on i s ou n merits and in ac(:ordzrnce r,r'it h larv g. ln vicrl thereof, this crirninal pe tition is dr,; nissr.rl Mis<:cllerneous applications, if any penclit ;, strirll stand closed //TRUE COPY' SD/- S.M/ LLIKARJUNA RAO 4$s[ raur REGISTRAR \ ,) ECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 4 The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Muluglr , Mulugu District. The Station House Officer, Wazeedu Police Station, Mul.t ;u Drstrrct. One CC to Sn Ravi Mothukur, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to the Public Prosecutor. High Court for the Stale of Telangana, Hyderabad IOUT] Two CD Copies PsKtPsL M,. HIGH COURT I DATED:21 11112025 ORDER CRLP.No.14471 of 2025 :) a c-) ! ( t iliE .- r,.14: t- JA 5t 202[ I rra'1 , ::-= - r-: -. DISMISSED THE CRIMINAL PETITION "(U' 1) \ \p