The High Court · 2025

This Petition comrng on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitron and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S LAKSHMI KANTH, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri D.Arun Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent; The Court made the following: OROER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15772 of 2o25 DATE: L7.12.2o25 BETWEEN: Mithun Mandal and another And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State ol Telangana at Hyderabad. . .. petitioner/ accused . - - ,. Respondent/ com plainant ORDER This Criminal Petition is hled under Sectio n 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS) for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.2 anci 3 in Crimc No. 154 of 2O2S before the 2 sl<s,J Crl-P.No.15772 of 2025 Easgoan Police Station, Kumarambheem Asifabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the case arose from a report dated 27 .1O.2O25, u,hen the Sub-Inspector of Police, Easgaon, stated that accused accused No. 1 was caught at the outskirts of Village No.O3, Basanthinagar, with 15 grams of dry ganja allegedly lound in the back-seat compartments of two motorcycles belonging to accused Nos.2 and 3. The police recorded a confession and seizure panchanama from accused No. 1 in the presencc of panch witnesses and registered FIR No. 154 of2025.

3. Heard Sri S- Lzrkshmikanth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additionzrl Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. Learned counse l lor thc petitioners submitted that the petitioners, arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3, had been falsely implicated with malicious intent, despite having no connection 3 SKS,J Crl.P.r{o- 15772 of 2025 to the alleged offence. He submitted that no ganja was recovered from their possession, that they were not present at the scene, and that the alleged recovery from unattended parked vehicles created no legal nexus between the contraband and the petiLioners. He contended that the petitioners were poor daily-wage workers, had no capacity to interfere with the investigaLion, and were being harassed by repeated police visits. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners by allowing this Criminal Petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counscl for the petitioners staling that the petitioners are the drug peddlers. He further submitted that the investigation is in progress and if the petitioners are released on pre-arrest bai[, at this stage, they may tamper with the evidence and ma,y th reaten the witnesses. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal perition.

6. In the light of the submissions made bv both the lcarned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it is noted that the limited grievance of iearncd counsel 4 sKs,J Crl.P.No.15772 of 2025 for the petitioners is that the petitioners were falsely implicated in the case and that petitioners are no way concerned with the alleged offence punishable under NDPS Act, as no contraband was seized from their possession, whereas, it is the specific stand of learned Additional Public Prosecutor that petitioners are actively involved with other accused in their illegal activities.

7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that in cases arising under the NDPS Act, the Court is required to exercise great caution while considering a prayer for anticipatory bail, keeping in view the naturc of allegations, gravity of the offence, and the necessity o[ custodial interrogation for a fair and effective investigation. The Hon'ble High Court, as allirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Chander v. State of Har5ranar, has observed that n-here the investigation materials disclose a prima facie link of the accused with the alleged offence, such as his involvcment being reflected from statements of co-accused, clectronic communication, or financial transactions, the grant of pre-arrest protection would seriously hamper the proccss of irrvestigation. The settled 'sLp (crl.) No. 9540 of 2o2s 5 sKs,J crl.P.Ito. 15772 of 2o25 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 alticipatory bail, 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. B. In view thereof, this criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/. A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER _,_-] To, 1 The Station House Officer, Easgoan P.S., Kumrambheem Asifabad District 2 One CC to SRI S LAKSHMI KANTH Advocate [OPUC] 3 Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad (OUT) 4. Two CD Copies VSII' PS I HIGH COURT DATED:1711212025 l'tlE S TA .{ I I -( 4 JAil zlIE z. JT \{ Ft'l ( : * ORDER CRLP.No.15772 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION @ I la/,