Pandla Ramesh v. The State Of Telangana

[ 3385 I

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10405 OF 2025 Between Pandla Ramesh, S/o. Venganna,Age. 39 Years, Occ. Agricultuer, R/o. H-No. 6-123, Ankalamma Street, Yadiki Town and Mandal, Anathapuram District.

...PetitionerslAccused No.9

AND The State of Telangana, through the SHO, Pebbair Police station, Wanaparthy District, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court forthe State of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

... RespondenUGom Ptai nant 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 toto enlarge the petitioner/accused No.9 on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR No. 127 of 2025, dated. 05-06-2025, on the file Station House officer, Pebbair Police Station, Wanaparthy District, pending enquiry and trial.

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Laxmaiah Kanchani ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, tearned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondentstate. The Court made the following: ORDER

(^:

THE HOITOURABI,E SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMIITAL PEIITION No.1O4O5 OF 2O25 ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 48i2 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS) by the petitioner/A.9 seeking anticipatory bail in connecl-ion with FIR No.L27 of 2025 of Pebbair Town Police Station, Wanaparthy District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 8(cl r/w.22(c) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "AIDPS Act'). 2.

The facts of .tl:e case are that on 05.06.20:24 on reliable information the police conducted raid at market yard near TSRTC bus stand of Pebbair town and seized 5OO grams c,f Alphrozolam from the possession of A.1 to A.4 as they are t.ransporting to supply the same to A.5 and A.5 used to supply rhc same to the remaining accused i.e., 4,.6 to A.11. The police an'ested A.5 and A.6 and taken them into custody and seized :5OO grams of Alphrozolam from the possession of accused. Basing on the complaint, police registered the case against the accused for the above offences.

-2o 3.

Heard Sri L,axmaiah Kanchani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the re spondent- State. 4.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and no contraband was seized from the petitioner herein and basing on the confession statement of A.5 and A.6, the petitioner herein is shown as ,..

accused and the allegation is that they sell Alphrozolam to needy persons at Pebbair, Kurnool, but admittedly petitioner is native of Ananthapurarn and he is no way concerned with the allege{ offences. He further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint does not attract any of the ingredients of Sections 8 (c) r/w.22 (c) and 29 of NDPS Act and the petitioner herein is falsely implicated in this case. As such, requested this Court to grant anticipatory bail.

5.

On the other hand learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail stating that the seized contraband is commercial quantity and according to the prosecution, A.5 used to supply Alphrozolam to petitioner herein. Further anticipatory bail is not

-3maintainable in NDPS cases, as such, requested this Court to dismiss this bail application.

6.

Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record., though petitioner contended that he is not involved in this case, it is not the stage to decide the same, as the seized contraband is 5OO, Brams of Alphrozolam which is a commercial quantity 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 natrrre 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.

8.

The Honble Supreme Court has consistently held that anticipatory bail should not be granted in NDPS cases as a matter I of routine, as the same may hamper the investigation and enable the accused to destroy evidence. Further, in the case of Anarul SK v. State of West Bengalr the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed t Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)No.1262112024 dated 19.09.2024

-t -4o'

that grant of anticipatory bail in cases involving NDPS is a very serious issue.

9.

In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that gant 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 prosecution, as such, there are no merits in this criminal petition to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and the s€rme is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, tl e petitioner shalt appear before. the trial Court and f-rle a regular bail application and on filing of such application, the trial Court is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/. C. DEEPIKA TANT REGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY/ OFFICER To,

1. The Station House Officer, Pebbair Police Station, District.

2. One CC to Sri Ldxmaiah Kanchani Advocate IOPUC]

3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.tOUTl

4. Two CD Cop'res fu,.

EPR/gh

HIGH COURT DATED:2810812025

ORDER

CRLP.No.10405 ot 2O25 I 1i{E :i ArA.

?n2q Iit o() t * rr 4 i t':;le(.\ DISMISSING THE CRL.PETITION.

t\ t0 1D