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

Petition under section 482 of BNSS, 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 5 of 2025 dated 27-07-2025 of PS Cyberabad Narcotics;\ This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of gri A SAMIR KUMAR REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri D.Arun Kumar, Addt Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent; The Court made the following: ORDER -o IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF'TELANGANA AT I{TDERABAI) THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15525 OF 2ol25

14.L2.20/25 Between : Daduram Chowdary And The State of Telangana, R.p., by it.s Public Prosecutor, High Cour-t for the State of Telangana, HyderabaC PetitionerlA.3 ... Respondent ORDER This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiye, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner/A.3 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.OS of 2025 of TG Anti-Narcotics Bureau Police Station, rl_yberabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections ti(c) rlw.2O(b) (ii) (B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short T{DPS ActJ. 2

2. The facts of the case are that on 27.07.2C25 o4 credible information that a person coming near private bus travels parking place near shivatayam temple, Kondapur RTO Office, on blue color Honda Activa bike bearing No.TS 07 KB 3978, the police reached the said place and concealed their prqsence' Two officers in mufti, were deployed along with an informant to monitor a suspected blue Honda Activa bike. At about 16.10 hours, the suspect was identified approaching from Kondapur RTO Circle. The mufti oflicers intercepted the vehicle a4d the suspect was taken into custody. Upon initial questioniqs, the suspect gave evasive responses, but later, on further interrogation, he opened the vehicle's dickey and prodqced a white cotton bag labeled "sangeeta PIONEER THEN, LEADER NOW,' containing multiple packets. He voluntarily confessed that the packets contained Ganja chocolates- He identified himself as C.Mukesh Choudhari, a confessional-cum-seizure statement was recorded wherein he admitted selling of Ganja chocolates in his Kirana shop, citing d.emand from m[grant labourers in the locality. He further stated that he and his father-petitioner herein had been procuring Ganja chocolates from one Mukesh/A.4 for the past ten years. Hence, the accused was apprehend.ed, and 1.485 kgs of Ganja was seized 3 and a caso was registered against the accused. for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri A.Samir Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that

4. petitioner is innocent of the said offences and he is falsely implicatec. in this case basing on the confession of accused No.1 which is .nadmissible in evidence. Section 5O of NDPS Act is not followed in this case. The petitioner is aged about 64 years and is running a kirana shop for eking out his livelihood. He further s.rbmitted that petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional hrblic Prosecutor opposed bail stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are seriotrs in nature. The petitioner is a habitual offender and he is involved in two other crimes. Further, investiga tion is not yet completed. At this stage, granting of pre-arre:it bail to the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss this criminal petition. 4

6. In the light of the submissions made by both th.e learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on recorfi, it is noted that the limited grievance of learned counsel fpr the petitioner is that the petitioner is f,alsely implicated in the case solely basing on the confession made by co-accused in whose possession contraband was seized and that petitioner is no way concerned with the atleged offence punishable under NDPS Act, as no contraband was seized from his possession, whereas, it is the speci{ic stand of learned Additional Public Prosecutor that petitioner is actively involved in this case with other accuped in his illegal activities.

7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that in cases 4rising under 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, gravity of offence, and the necessity of custodial interrogation for a fair and effective investigation. The Honble High Court, as affirmed by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Chaader v. State of Haryanal, has observed that where the investigation materials disclose a prima facie link of the accused with the alleged offence, such as his involvement being reflected from staternents r SLP (Crl.) No- 954O ot 2025 _F7 5 of co-ac<:used, electronic communication, or financial transactions, 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 investigati,:n is at a nascent stage and the role of petitioner requires thorough examination. In such circumstances, tJre Court malr rightly decline to extend the discretionary relief of anticipatory bai[, 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. Further, petitioner is involved in two other crimes pertaining to the similar offences. As such, petitioner is not entitled fo:: bail and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed. Misr:ellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. sD/- A. .S.GOWRI SHANKAR s ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, 1' The X,r Add. District and sessions Judge, cyberabad, Rangareddy District 2' The spr. "udiciar First crass Magistrate cum v Addr. Junior civir Judge cum V Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Rangareddy at L. B. Nagar

3. The Static,n House Officer. Cyberabad Narcotics p.S., TG Anti Narcotics Bureau (TGANB) rs.,---r!-I&.?@i r. ' . , ,711 i;, , t. trI :!:, :i"

4. One CC to SRl. A SAMIR KUMAR REDDY Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High court at Hyderabad (ouT) 6. Two CD Copies VSIvUPSL f HIGH COLJRT DATED:1811212025 i.l \ ( SIIi i5 2 t JA}l 2026 (-, P :dl ORDER cRLP.No,.l5525 0f 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION Ier I