High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Honorable High Court of Telangana. Through SHO. P.S Shyampet. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner /A9 on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with crime. No. 133 of 2024 on the fi{e of the shayampet Police Station, Hanamkonda, Warangal District, against the Petitioner/ Accused No 9 for the alleged offences u1s 8 (c). r/w 20 (b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act in the 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 K R suNlL KUMAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Asst. Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER )1 rHE HONOT'RABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PBTITION lto.16231 of 2O24 ORDER: This Criminal Pelition is hled under Sectio o 4g2 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short tsNSS,) for grant of pre-arrest bail to tJle petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.9 in Crime No. 133 of 2O24 of Shayampet police Station, Hyderabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that oo 3O.O9.2O24, Sub_ Inspector Ch. Pravod Kumar received information that six individuals were possessing and distributing ganja, a banned substance, at Pedagutta, outskirts of pathipaka village. A team led by the Sub-Inspector apprehended the six individuals, who confessed to purchasing and selling ganja. The said team seized 2.O45 kg of dry ganja worrh Rs.S1,125/_ and several mobile phones used in the commission of the offenSe. The entire procedure was documented, and the seized items were handed over to the police station for safe custody. The six accused individuals were taken into custody, and a case was registered against them. 2 sr(s,J crl-P.Xo.t623t of WZ4

3. Heard Sri K. R. Sunil Kumar, Iearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Syed yasar Mamoon, learned Additional public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitione r submitted that the petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated in the case and that t.Ile Police relied on a coerced confessional statement from a co-accused. He further submitted that the allegalions in the FIR do not constitute a prima facie offence against the petitioner and that the confession of the co_accused is inadmissible as evidence, as per the Judgment of ttle Hon,ble Supreme Court in Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil trtadur. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre_arrest bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional public prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the leamed counsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner is drug peddlers. He further submitted that the investigation is in progress and if the petitioner is released on bail, at this stage, he may tamper ' uanulsclotstlzozo 3 sKs'J Crl.P.No.15231 of 2024 with the evidence and may threaten the witnesses. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the limited grievance of learned counsel for ttre petitioner is that the petitioner was falsely 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 offence punishable under Sections 8 (c) read with 2O(bXiil(B) of NDPS Act, as no contraband was seized from his possession, whereas, it is the specihc stand of learned Additional Public Prosecutor tlnt petitioner is actively involved wittr other accused in his illegal activities-

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 public interest in preventing and controlling these offences. I

8. The Hon'lcle Supreme Court has consistently held that anticipatory bail should not be granted in NDPS cases as a 4 sKs,J CrLP-I{o.16231 of 2024 matter of routine, as the same may hamper the investigaLion and enable the accused to destroy evidence. Further, in the case of Anarul SK v. State of {Iest Bengal2 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 graat of pre-arrest bail at a stage when the investigation is still in progress, may impede the investigative process and potentially prejudice the 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, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, sha.ll stand closed. 2 Pe.ti$'o {rr Taful lr^te +o fu,cJ@"lrro.naeJ F**t ]/:q'zoLc- SD/. N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// E TION OFFICER To, \

1. The Shayarnpet Police Station, Hanamkonda. Warangal District. 2. One CC to SRl. K R SUNIL KUMAR, Advocate [OPUCI 3. Two CC to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG) Advocate High Court for the state of Telangana [OUTt 4. Two CD Copies s HIGH COURT DATED: 0810112025 ORDER CRLP.No.16231 of 2024 -t \ 1\1e sT.q I k C () 19 FEB ?fri5 i.. \\.--- ,:,trTe il r:f) ; / ,.ft DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITTON i,9 U,( W