The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SU. ANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15782 of 2OII; DATE:16.12.2o25 BETWEEN: Aila Simhachalam petitioner/ ru cused No.g And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public ProsecuLor, High Court for the State o[ Telangana at Hyderabad. . - . . . Respondent/ c :mplainant ORDER This Criminal Petition is hled under Se( 1 on 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for sl ort tsNSSJ for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.9 in Crime No.162 of 2025 before the I [asab Tank 2 SKS.J Crl.P.[o.157a2 of 2025 Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with 2O(b)(iiXA), 20(bXi0(B), 27(bl of NDPS Act arld Section 25(1XA) of Arms Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.O6.2025, the Masab Tank Police received credible information ttrat certain individuals were in possession of and selling ganja and hashish oil near the Pension Oflice bus stop, Virinchi Signal, Hyderabad. Basing on the informalion, the police conducted surveillance, apprehended four persons at the spot, and seized small quantities of ganja, hashish oil, chillams, crushers, knives, and other materials.

3. Heard Sri N. Jarnardhan Reddy learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State. 4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submitte d that the petitioner was innocent, had been falsely implicated, and was in no way connected with the alleged offences. He further ( I i i I I I I I I I a i '' i 3 sKs,J Crl.P,l o.l57E2 of 2025 submitted that the petitioner was a permanent resident of Andhra Pradesh, that no material or evidence li: Lked him to the alleged drug transaction, and that the police. Lad targeted him with the intention to cause harassment. [I that the earlier anticipatory bail of the p(rl dismissed without proper appreciation of fa: : contended .tioner was .s and the mandatory requirements under Section 37 NDPS I .ct, and that all co-accused had already been granted reguL r bail after completion of substantial investigation. Therefor :, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petition(x by allowing this Criminal Petrtion.

5. On the other hand, Iearned Additional Pubti l Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned crr rnsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner is a drl. g reddler. He further submitted that the investigation is in prr gress and if the petitioner is released on pre-arrest bail, at -: Lis stage, he may tamper with the evide nce and may t rreaten the witnesses. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. 6. ln the Iight of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on 4 SKS,J Crl,P.[o.157E2 of2025 record, it is noted that the limited grievarrce of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner were falsely implicated in the case and that petitioner is 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 petitioner is activeiy 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 nature of allegations, gravity of the offence, and the necessitSr of custodial interrogation for a fair arrd elfective invesligation. The Hon'ble High Court, as afhrmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Chander v, State of Haryanar, has observed that where the investigation materials disclose a pima facie link of the accused with the alleged offence, such as his involvement being reflected from statements of co-accused, electronic communication, or financial transactions, the grant of pre-arrest protection would seriously hamper the process of investigation. The settled I SLP (Crl.) No. 9540 of 2025 /'

1.' t I 1: t : 5 S}(It,J Crl,E ,) o,L57E2 of 2025 position of law is that anticipatory bail is not to 1r a matter of routine or on mere assertion c f I granted as innocence, particularly when the investigation is at a nascrr t stage and the role of the petitioner requires thorough exarr ination. In such circumstances, the Court may rightly declir e to extend tlte discretionary relief of anticipatory bail, leavi:-r J it open to the accused to surrender before the jurisdictionl Court and seek regular bail, which shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law.

8. In view thereof, this criminal petition is disn ssed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending shail stand closed. SDI K. BHAVANI SWAMY ASSIS' ANT REGISTRAR _\r, //TRUE COPY// , l;ecrtou oFFtcER To,

1. The V Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, Hyder rbad' 2. The station House Officer, Police Station, Masabtank, ['l ,derabad District 3. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at ll rderabad (OUT) 4. One CC to SRI . N JANARDHAN REDDY Advocate [O: JC] 5. Two CD CoPies rrKna f,{5 HIGH COURT DATED:161121202s ..2_i HE ST4 o(J t ? i JA|l 2026 Dt ;,-...-,.'-.r ii\;. ORDER CRLP.N o.15782 ot 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION lS DlSMlSl: ED (Otu" x1o1,,"'