The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad ...Respondent Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in F.l.R.tto.Og of ,025, On the file of the P.S Hyderabad Narcotics, TG Anti- Narcotics []ureau, Hyderabad This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P VISHNUVARDHANA REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri D.Arun Kumar, Adrjitional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER -d THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14347 of 2025, CIII-trffiE This criminal Petition is filed under section 492 of Bharatiya Nagarik suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short tsNSSl for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.12, 26,27,30 and 33 in crime No.9 of 2o2s before the Hyderabad Narcotics Police station, TG Anti Narcotics Bureau.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint todged by sri s. Ravi Kumar, Inspector of Police, Hyderabad Narcotics police station, upon receiving information regarding the alleged manufacture and sale of Alprazolam. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered the above said crime against the accused, alleging illegal possession and distribution of commercial quantities of Alprazolam. During the investigation, the potice claimed that the accused persons u,ere dealing with Alprazolam in kilograrn quantities, allegedly purchasing it at Rs.3,OO,O0O/- per kg and distributing it to variotrs toddy shop operators. t t: 2 sKs,J Crl.P.No.14347 of 2o.25 I{eard sri P. vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned counsel

3. appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. learned counsel for t]re petitioners submitted that the petitioners were innocent and had been falsely implicated without any reoovery, seizure, or incriminating material linking them to the allt:ged offences and that the entire case against them rested only orL the inad.missible custodial confessions of co-accused A-5 and A-{}, which were hit by section 23(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhinil'am. He contended that the financial transactions relied upon t,y the police had innocent explanations and could not constitttte an offence under the NDPS Act in the absence of a "live link" to any contraband. Therefore, he prayed the Court Lo grant pre-arrost bail to the petitioners by allowing this criminal petition'

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposecl the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petition,:rs stating that the allegations leveled against the petition,:rs are serious in nature. Further, the investigation was not yet :ompleted. At this stage, granting of pre-arrest bail to the r J 4 3 SKSr", Crl.P.IIo. 14347 ol 2,ol25 petitioners does not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In tl.e light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it is noted that tJ:e 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 contlaband was seized and that petitioners are no way concerned with the alteged offence punishable under NDPS Act, as no contraband was seized from their possession, whereas, it is the specific stand of learned Additional Public Prosecutor that petitioners are actively involved with other accused in his illegal activities.

7. , At this stage, it is pertinent to note that in cases arising under the NDPS Act, the Court is required to exercise great caution white considering a prayer for anticipatory bail, keeping in view the natare of altegations, gravity of the offence, and the necessity of custodial interrogation for a fair and effective investigation. The Hon'ble High Court, as aflirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh chander v. state of Haryanal, has \ \ 'sr-p (crt.) No. 9540 of 2025 4 sKs,J Crl.P.IIo. 14347 of 2ol25 observed that where the investigation materials disclose a pima facie link of the accused with the alleged offence, such as his involvt:ment being reflected from statements of co-accused, electronic communication, or financial transactions, the grant of pre-arrest protection would seriously hamper the process of investigation. The settled position of law is that anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of routine or on mere assertion of innocence, particularly when the investigation is at a nascent stage and the role of the petitioners requires thorough examination. In such circumstances, the Court may rightly decline to extend the discretiona4r relief of anticipatory bail, leaving it open to the accused to surrender before the jurisdictional Court and seek. regular bail, which shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. I In view thereof, this criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed Sd/. M. NAGAMANI REGISTRAR I'TRUE COPY" SECTION OFFICER To 1

2. 3. Two C)D CoPies NVB/PR Y*- HIGH COURT DATED i2111112025 *, ORDER CRLP.No.14347 ot 2025 a s .l( J3 A}l 2026 ,t t, * I DISMISiSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 6ls (>, P"o'