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 to direct Respondent No.2 not to take any coercive steps against the Petitioner herein till the disposal of the present petition, in the interest of justice. Petition under Section 151 of CPC., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the document as listed. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri VANKINA ALLU AND PARTNERS, Acivocate for the Petitioner and E. Ganesh Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and 2. The Court made the following: ORDER { I I IlT THE HIGH COURT r.OR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT ITYDERABAD THE HOI{OURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITIOIII No. L7293 of 2O25 DATE: 3o'.L2.2o.25 IIIffiI;'-fTI'E Narsan Goud .pe titioner/ accused No.3 And The State of Telang€.na. Rep. by il:s Public Prosecutor, High Cou.rt for the State of Teiangeiir:r at Hyderabad and another . . . . . Rcs p.ronde nt/ complainant ORI}ER This Criminal Petition is tiled under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2023 (for short 'BNSSJ for grant of pre-arrest bail to lire peiitiouer-, who is arrayed as accused No.3 in Criine i{o.3-(i5 of 2025 before the 2 SKS,^, Ctl.P.Ito. 17293 of 2of25 Nagarkurnool Police Station, Nagarirurnool District, registered for the offences punishable undcr Scction 8(c) read with 22(b) of NDPS Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR dated

14.11.2025 registered by the Sub-lnspector of Police, Nagarkurnool, in Crime No.395 ol 2025 under Sectirons 8(c) read with 22(bl of the NDPS Act, alleging that certain accused were involved in the sale anii purchase of Alprazolam at Golden Cafe Dabha, Uyyalavada village. During the raid,

26.22 grams of Atpra zctiam vias triiegedly recovered from Accused No.1, who, in his confe.ssional statement, implicated the petitioner as Accuserl No..i e:s tt:e supplier.

3. Heard M/s. Vankin;l Allii rrird Partners learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petii.i()n(:r' as well as Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosr:cutc;r appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel fi.'r: th,'' ilr'tltioner submitted that the petitioner was falsely in'iplicrrtt:ri solely on the basis of the inadmissible confession i:)i'ir co-act:rrsect and that there was no 3 sKs", Crl.P.IIo. I 7293 of 20.25 independ(:nt material connecting him with the alleged offence. He further submitted that the petitioner was neither present at the place of occurrence nor involved in possession or sale of the conhaband, and that similarly placed co-accused had already been granted bail. He contended that reliance on a : police confession was barred under law, that the petitioner was a law-abiding citizen with no criminal antecedents. Therefore:, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitione:: by allowing this Criminal Petition.

5. Or. the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner is a drug peddler. He further :;ubmitted that the investigation is in progress and if the petitioner is released on bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the evidence and may threaten the witnesses. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, Lt is noted that the limited grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was flalsely implicated in the case and that petitioner is no way concerned with the 4 sKs,J Crl.P.IIo. 17293 of 2O2S alleged offence punishable under NDPS Act, as no contraband was seized from his possession, whereas, it is the specific stand of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that petitioner is actively involved with other accused in their illegal activities.

7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that in case's arising under the NDPS Act, the Cgurt 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 necessity of custodial interrogation for a f,air and effective investigation. The l{on'ble High Court, as affrrmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Chander v. State of Haryanar, has observed that rvhere the investigation materials disclose a primo facie link of the accused with the alleged offence, such as his involvcnrent being reflected from statements of co-accused, electronic communication, or hnancial transactions, the 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 investigation is at a nascent stage and ' su 1crt.1 No. 9540 of 2025 5 sl(sn, Crl.P.Lo.17293 of 2O2S the role c,f the petitioner requires thorough examination. In such circumstances, the Court may rightly decline to extend the discn:tionary relief oi anticipatory 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.

8. In view thereof, this criminal petition is dismissed. Mis;cellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed To Sd/- A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR ISTANT REGISTRAR ,,TRUE COPY/' SECTION OFFICER

1. The Princ;ipal District and Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool, Nagarkurnool District.

2. The Statirn House Officer Police Station. Nagarkurnool District. e CC ro SRl. VANKINA ALLU AND PARTNERS Advocate IOPUCI 3 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT].

5. Two CD 3opies W PKi I'R HIGH COURT DATED:3011212025 ORDER CRLP.No.17293 ot 2025 r-" ( oR THE S 1 I rFn 202[ '1,,".\ig$/ CRIMINAL PEITITION IS DISMISSED. T\ ]t,