The Hon'ble High Court, as affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court in Dinesh Chander v. State of Haryanal, has observed that where the investigation materials disclose a

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 petitioner herein on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with FIR No. 169 of 2025 of Mugpal Police Station, Nizamabad District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N Ravi, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. o The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT F.OR THE STATE OF TI LANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SI JANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15192 of 2O: iS DATE: L5.12.2O25 BETWEEI{: Thimmaipally Narsa Goud And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. .petitione: /accused No.5 ... Responde t ./complainant ORDER This Criminai Petition is filed under Section 43 2 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short tsNSS,) f : - grant of pre- arrest bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as ar:, used No.S in Crime No.169 of 2025 before the Mugpal police Static n, Nizamabad 2 sKs,.I Crl.P.l{o.15192 of2O2S District, registered for the offences punishabie under Sections g(c) read with 22(c) a.nd 29 of NDpS Act 't

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.tO.2O25, the SHO of Mugpal PS received credible information that two persons were bringing Alprazolam to Thanakurdh village for mixing it in toddy. After informing superiors and securing panch witnesses, the police team conducted surveillance near the Thanakurdh village arch and intercepted two suspects arriving on a scooty. Upon questioning, both accused voluntarily produced Alprazolam packets from their pant pockets. The police se2ed 4Og grams from Al and 1g2 grams from A2, along with their mobile phones and the vehicre. Both accused confessed that they had procured Alprazolarn from one Usha Goud to adulterate toddy for increasing sales ald were transporting it to their shop. After the seizure and preparation of panchanama, the accused and property weri: brought to the police station. ,{3, the alleged supplier, was reported absconding.

3. Heard Sri N. Ravi, learned counsel appearing on behalfof the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent _ State. sxs,J Crl P. o.15192 of2(xl5

4. Learned counsel for the petiLioner submi ted that the petitioner was innocent ald had beerr falsely implc rted solely on the basis of the confessional statement of a co-accur :d. He further submitted that the name of the petitioner did not aFI ear in the FIR and no contraband was seized from him, nor was hc present at the scene of offence. He contended that a confession mac 3 to the police by a co-accused was inadmissibie under Section 25 c ' the Evidence Act and could not form the basis of implication in : n NDpS case. Except for the alleged statement of A 1 , there was rr , independent or reliable material connecting the petitioner t I the offence. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arr(:r t bail to the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional pulr c prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned c I rnsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner is a drug peddle :. He further submitted that the investigation is in progress and if the petitioner is released on pre-arrest bail, at this stage, he may til nper with the evidence and may threaten the witnesses. Hence, I e prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In the iight of the submissions made by bo.J the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available o I record, it is noted that the limited grievance of learned co ..t tsel for the 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.15192 of 2025 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 specilic stard of learned Additional public Prosecutor that petitioner is actively involved with other accused in their illegal activities. i. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that in cases arising r.rnder the NDPS Act, the Court is required to exercise great caution while considering a prayer for anticipatory bail, keeping in view the nature of allegations, gravi[r of the offence, and the necessity of custodial interrogation for a fair and effective investigation. The Hon'ble High Court, as affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court in Dinesh Chander v. State of Haryanal, has observed that where the investigation materials disclose a pima /acie link of the accused with the alleged offence, such as his involvement 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 petilioner I sLP (crl.) No. 9540 of 2025 5 SKS,J ( '1.P.Ho.15192 of2025 requires thorough examination. In such circumsta rces, the Court may rightly deciine to extend the discretionary reli: ' of anticipatory bail, leaving it open to the accused to surre:r ler before the jurisdictional Court and seek regular bai1, .\ hich shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance wi:. L law.

8. In view thereof, this criminal petition is dismi sed Miscellaneous applications, if any pendi I 1, shall stand closed. AS (-i Sd/. U. SUDHA I; STANT REGISTRAR [:_ &crroru OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To

1. The ll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizam r rad 2. The Station House Officer, Mugpal Police Station, Nizan abad 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Stat€ 'f Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri N Ravi, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies ABK,?R HIGH COURT DATED: 1511212025 ORDER CRLP.No.15192 of 2025 .r I :1 H,rD \I () o 0i iI ,[?i ,l * a){- { 'x,'"j9; DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION t J].-S ;f 'fza