The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SMT. WSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.lSt9O of2O2S DATE: O3.12.2O25 BET\IIEEN: Ravi Goud ....petitioner/accused And The State of Telangana, SIIO, Golconda police Station, Rep by its public prosecutor, High Courl at Hyderabad . .. .. Respondent/complainant ORDER This Criminal petition is frled under Sectio n 4g2 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ,BNSS) for grant o[ prc-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused in Crime No.278 of 2025 before the Golconda police 7 sr{s,J Crl.P.lIi ,15I9O of 2025 Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences tunishable under Sections 22(b1,27(Al and Section 29 ofNDPS Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 08.1

1.2025 th.e Sub-Inspector of Golconda Police received credible nformation that a person aged about 45 5rears. along with twc rthers, was arriving near Zeeshan Hotel, Alizapur Road, to deliver Alprazolam. After informing superior officers urr ler Section 42(2) NDPS Act and securing mediators, the rolice kept surveillance and apprehended thrce suspects at ar rund 19:15 hours. On personal search of accused No.l the police claimed to have recovered a transparent packet co rtaining 5O grams of Alprazolam, marked as M- 1, along wit r a mobile phone and Rs.2,5OO/-. Thc other two accus,l I allegedly confessed to participating in the sale and purchas,: of the drug for five to six years. Their mobile phones were also seized.

3. Heard Sri B. .Jithender, learned counsel ag pearing on behalf of the petilioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kun ar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on bel alf of the respondent - S tate . sl<s,, Crl.P.No.l5l9O of 2025

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no contraband was recovered from the pelitioner and no material connected him to the alleged transaction, hence Section 22(b) NDPS Act was not attracted and that Section 27(A) was wholly inapplicable as there was no allegation of financing or harbouring, no drug consumption, and no evidence of involvement in drug trafhcking. He further submitted the complaint did not contain a single allegation naming the petitioner, and the potice had falsely implicated him out of personal grudge r,,,,ithout any independent evidence. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the peLitioncr 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. He lurther submitted that the investigation is in progress and if the petitioner is released on pre-arrest bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the evidence and may t_hreaten the wilnesses. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 4 SKS,J Crl.P. Y .1519O of 2()25

6. In the light of the submissions made Ir. both the learned counsel ald a perusal of the material a raiiable on record, it is noted that the Iimited grievance of learr .ed counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was falsell implicated in the case and that petitioner is no way concerrr .d w,ith the alleged cffence punishable under NDPS Act, as nc -^-G-^k^-.1 was seized from his possession, whereas, it is he specific stand of learned Additional Public Prosecutor that I etitioner is actively involved with other accused in his itlegat ac ,ivities.

7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that in i i ses arrslng under the NDPS Act, the Court is required to e>:r rcise great caution while considering a prayer lor anticic rtory bail, keeping in view the nature of allegations, gr:r ity o[ the offence, and the necessity o[ custodial interrogatit -r lor a fair and effective investigation. Thc Hon'ble High Court, as afhimed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh r )hander v. State of Haryanal, has observed thal where thc ir vestigation materials disclose a pima facie lirtk of the acclt:t d with the alleged offence, such as his involvement bcing rel :cted from statements of co-accused. electronic commLlt r :ation, or 'sLe icri.1 No.9540 of 2025 5 SIGi,J Crl.P-Ito.1519O of 2()25 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 petitioner 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 seek regular bail, u,hich shatl be considered on its own merits and in accordance with lar.r..

8. In view thereof, this criminal petition is dismissed. Misccllaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed SD/- P PONNA KRISH ASSISTANT REG R /TTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The XVll Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad' 2. The Station House Officer, Golconda Police Station' Hyderabad' 3' Two CCS to the Pub|ic Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangiana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Mr. B JITHENDER Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies \6. HIGH COURT DATED: 0311212025 ORDER CRLP.No.15190 of 2025 ,4. ' - ---- "a .:"." ',',I , I L 2TJAN2olll t --:--'' z. .-) * Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is Dis missed. % ."q(to Yr s ,