The High Court · 2025

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 toto direct the S.H.O. PS. Habeeb Nagar, Hyderabad or any arresting officer to release the petitioneriAccused No.4 on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 313 ot 2024 of P.S. Habeeb Nagar pending enquiry investigation and trial in the above case in interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T. G. Suresh Lal, Advocate for the Petitioner and the public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER TI{E HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CzuMINAL PEIITION NO.159OO OF 2024 ORDER This criminal petition is frled by the petitioner/A.4 seeking . anticipatory bail in connection with Cr.No.313 of 2024 of Habeeb Nagar, Police Station, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 8 (c) r/w. Section 22 (b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and under Section 125 r/w.Section 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2O2ll.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on the direction of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, on 2l -Oa.2O24, the Inspector of Police D. Rambabu, aiong with his team, proceeded to house bearing No.11-1-1165/4, Mallepa_lly, Afzal Sagar, I{yderabad along with panchas and at 4:35 hours, they knocked on the door, and upon entry, Rambabu introduced himself and his team, informing the occupant, Ram tal, about the purpose of their visit. A search yielded two boxes of Neraset Tablets, containing of 544 tablets weigh ing 212.6 grams, recorded the confession-cum-seizure panchanama. Based on I I l I 2 this seizure, a case was registered against the petitioner and others

3. Heard Sri T.G.Suresh Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearlng I I for the respondent.

4. The contention of learned counsel for tJle petitioner is that the allegations made against the petitioner are all false and tleat he has never committed any offense and intended to impiicate him. As a daily wage earner, the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family, including his elderly parents' wife' and children, who will suffer greatly if he is not granted bail' He further contended that entire investigation was completed and the statements of material witnesses were recorded' The police custody is unnecessar5/, and there is no risk of the petitioner absconding or tampering with witnesses' The petitioner fears harassment by the police and is willing to provide sufficient sureties and comply with any conditions imposed if granted anticipatory bail.

5. On the other hand the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail on the ground that investigation is not yet completed and petitioner is also involved in similar offences l I F 3 in tfrree crimes and if bail is granted he may commit similar offences. As such, prayed this Court to dismiss this petition'

6. Having regard to the submissions made by both the counsel and t he material on record, tJre only contention of petitioner herein is that he is falsely implicated in this case' Petitioner is a daily wage earrler and he is having old aged parents suffering with old age ailments and also having wife and children and he is only one to look after the entire family, whereas the petitioner herein is found in possession of NITRAVET 10 Mg which is a scheduled H drug, contravening the provisions of NDPS Act, whereas, it is the specihc stand of learned Additi,rnal Public Prosecutor that petitioner is actively involved in this case. The investigation in the case is not yet completed.

7. At this stage, it is pertinent to observe that the Courts exercise caution while dealing with anticipatory bail petitions in NDPS cases due to the serious nature of these offences. Granting anticipatory bail in regular manner may hamper the investigation, allow the accused to abscond, and undermine f ( ( public interest in preventing and controlling these offences. 4 k

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that anticipatory bail should not be granted in NDPS cases as a matter of routine, as the same may hamper the investigation and enable the accused to destroy evidence. Further, in the case of Anarul SK v. State of West Bengalt the Honble Supreme Court observed that grant of anticipatory bail in cases involving NDPS is a very serious issue.

9. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the grant of pre-arrest bail at a stage when .the investigation is still in progress, .may impede the investigative process and potentially prejudice t}le case of the prosecution, as such, there are no merits in this criminal petition to grant pre- arrest bail to the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// ASSI SDA MOHD. ISMAIL NT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER lhe {V_l Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad One CC_to Sri T. G. Suresh Lat, AOvocateiOpu"Ci' '',' The SHO, pS Habeeb Nagar, t-iyOeiib;d '-' ""' +W3 33""tSJ,"1tlic One Spare Copy I Petition for Speciat l,€ave to Appcal (Crl.)No.1262112024 dated 19 -O9.2024 Prosecutor, Hvderabad for the state of relangana [oUT] I \ To,

1. .,..,@ A nt' tu.L!. -/\6. -,=E-=1-- HIGH COURT DATED: 03t01t2025 iI t: 1) o q5 i1-C 0 5 ilA|] zflzl ORDER CRLP.No.15900 of 2024 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION t1 ,{-