The High Court · 2025

State of Telangana,, Rachakonda Anti Narcotic Bureau Police Station Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 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 grant Anticipatory bail to the Petitioner/Accused No. 34 in the event of his arrest in FIR vide Crime No. 1 of 2025 of Rachakonda Narcotic Police Station, Hyderabad, for offences under Sections B(c),22(c),27A, 27(a), and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri E VENKATA SIDDHARTHA, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Arun Kumar Dodla the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15O85 of2025 17th DAY OF DECEMBER?O2S Between: Chhagan Lal. The Stare of Tela ngana, Rachakonda Anti Narcc,tic Bureau Police Station, rep by Public Pross:utor, Telangana, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hvdera Irad. PETITIONER RESPONDENT ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed before this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petition<:r who is arrayed as accused No.34 in Crime No.1 of 2025 befc're the Rac:hakonda Narcotic Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offerrces punishable under Sections 8(cl,22(cl,27A,27(al and 29 of NDPS Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has been arrayed as Accused No. 34 in connection with the alleged possession and saie of cocaine rvithin Hyclerabad, as he is linked 2 to "Bharath Chaganlal Company @ ST Bombay" and allegedly involved in hawala and money laundering activities connected wittr Nigerian drug peddlers. The implica.tion of the petitioner is primarily based on the confessional statement of Accused No. 39 and certain WhatsApp communications betu,een Accused No. 25 and the said company

3. Heard Sri E,Venkata Siddhartha, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learncd Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalfof the respondent - State.

4. l,earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire case against the petitioner is speculative and unsupported by cogent evidence. He contended thzrt there is no direct communication between the petitioner and the co-accused, nor any documentary proof linking him to _the seized contraband or the busted money. He averred that the petitioner was not present at tJle search locations in Hyderabad or Mumbai, and no incriminating material was recovered from his Delhi ofhce, and the only basiS for his implication is the uncorroborated statement of Accused No. 39, which cannot sustain charges under Section 27A of the NDPS Act, as there is no proof of financing, harbouring, or 3 abetment. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to ttre petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition-

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are of serious nature. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. Having regard to 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 and that petitioner is no way concerned with the alleged offence punishable under 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 note that in cases arising under the NDPS Act, the Court is required to exercise great I I caution while considering a prayer for anticipatory bail, keeping in view the nature of allegations, gravity of the offence, and the E necessity of custodial interrogation for a fair and effective investigation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Chander v, State of Haryanal, affirmed the view of High Court observing that where the invesLigation material disclose a prima facb link of the accused with the aileged offence, such as his involvement being reflected from stzrtenlents 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 cn mere assertion of innocence, particularly *f..l ,fr. investigation is at a nascent I stage and the role of the p4titioner requires thorough examination. In such circumstances, thJ Court may rightly decline to extend the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

8. In view thereof, this Criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, il an-y, ncling shall stand closed. I SLp (r,t.)+ro. CSqo of ur5 //TRUE COPY// SDI A. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (-?- SECTION OFFICER To, 2

1. The l Additional District and Sessions Judge at LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. inl'5pe"irf Judicial First Class(Excise) Magistrate-cum-V Additional rV"iroiofit"n Magistrate-cum-V Additionat Junior Civil Judge at LB Nagar' RangareddY District' il;-SHO dachakonda, TG Anti Narcotic Bureau Police Station' Hyderabad Commissionerate. Ranqareddv District (TGANB) i

4. One CC to SRl. E VENKATA SIDDHARTHA Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT].

6. Two CD Copies PK/Sa \ Jfy HIGH COURT I DATED:1711212025 CRLP.No.15085 ot 2025 1 I HE .._- 4 i':.+ i.J J 20 ,N?R 'clr,L\ i\ t CRIMINAL PEITITION IS DISMISSED. 0> rk? ,rl,,l ,-6