Tikki@Syed Shaheed Ali Tikki Vs The State of Telangana

Tikki@Syed Shaheed Ali Tikki, S/o^{Syed Zghgd..Ali,_agedqbgllt27-1te7rs.,} occup-ati6n. Private Employee, resident of^{H.No.15504, JubileeMarket,} Kazipet, Hanamkonda A3

¶11

... Petitioner/Accused No.3

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Represented^{by Public Prosecutor, High Court of} Telangana.

¶14

...RespondenUDefacto Complainant

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of BNSS^{prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the lrlemorandum of^{Groundsof Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay} be pleased to^grant anticipatory^{bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest in} connection with FIR No 185^{1202{ of P.S. Kazipet, Hanamkonda Under Sections} 8(c) r/w 20 (b)^{(ii) (A),} Sec27^{of NDPS Act, 1985.ln the Ho'ble Court of l-Addl} Judicial First Class ft/agistrate At^{Hanamkonda,considering the petitioner's} occupation and his negligible^{role in the purported offensein the pursuit of} justice.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^{perusing the Nlemorandumof} Grounds of Criminal Petition and^{upon hearing theargumentsof} Sri MD Fasiuddin, Advocate^for the^{Petitionerand Sri Syed YasarMamoon,} Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf^{of the Respondent.}

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

: . 't .,.EnF*wrr'.:a-3'jr

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1 oF 202s

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This criminal petition is filed under section 492 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short^.BNSSJ by the petiti<>ner/A.3 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.185 of 2024 of Kazipet police Station, warangal District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are trnder Sections 8(cl rlw.2o(b) (ii)(A) and 2T of Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substancr:s Act, 1985 (for short,NDPS Act).

¶23

The case of the prosecution is that on '22.or.2o24 at about L2oo hours, as per the orders of the authorities, the s.l.of Police, along with his staff while patrolling in Kazipet area, at about 1230 hours noticed a suspicious person near Kazipet Railway Park carrying a plastic cover. on being apprehended, the said person revealed himself as verpula Shyam, S/o George, aged 22 years, resident of venkatadrinagar, Kazipet, and the cover was found to contain dry buds and flowers with a strong smell, which he admitted to be ganja. In the presence of panch witnesses the contraband was weighed which showed that the seized ganja ,r,eighed 50O grams, valued at Rs.12,5O0/_. The accused confessed that he had procured ganja from the persons

ii

r1

-2-

named Sonu and Tikki of Jama Masjid area, who used to bring ganja from Vizag and supply it to him for sale at Kazipet Railway Station. Thereafter, the accused along with the seized property vi,as brought to the police station, the contraband was deposited in the Malkhana and a report. ,*,as submitted for initiating appropriate legal action against the accused. Basing on the complaint the police registered a case against the accused for the above offences.

¶28

'^)

¶29

Heard Sri Md. Fasiuddin, learned' counsel for the petitioner and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

¶30

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent of the offences, he is falsely implicated in this case and no contraband or incriminating material is seized from the possession of petitioner herein. The petitioner herein was arrayed as accused basing on the confession of A.1 which is inadmissible and that the ganja seized is not a commercial quantity. Further, material part of investigation is completed as such, custodial interrogation of this petitioner is not necessary and the petitioner shall abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. As such, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶31

3

¶32

On t.he other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail stating that earlier the petitioner herein obtained anticipatory bail in Crl.P.No.11i89 of 2024 on 27.O9.2O24, u'herein he rvas clirectcd to surrender before the sFIo within two weeks fronr t.hat date, whereas petitioner appeared before the SHO on tlre last day of bail expiry but did not produce any sureties and when he was told to produce sureties he went away saying that. he would return with sureties, but he did not come again. The petitioner herein along with A.2 sold ganja to A.1. Further, investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed and one other case is also pending against him. If bail is granted to the petition.er, he will commit similar offence and may abscond. As such, prayed this Court to dismiss this petition.

¶33

(. \

¶34

6- considering the submissions made by both the counsel and material on record, earlier this petitioner was granted bail by this court but he did not comply with the directions and absconded. Further the petitioner herein is also having previous crime history. 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

¶35

L

¶36

-4-

¶37

undermine public interest in preventing and controlling these offences

¶38

r)

¶39

The Hon'ble Supreme court has consistently held that anticipatory bail should not be granted in NDpS cases as a matter of routine, as the same may hamper the investigation and enable the accused to destroy evidence. Further, in the case of Anarut sK v. state of west Bengall the Hon,ble Supreme court observed that grant of anticipatory bail in cases involving NDPS is a very serious issue.

¶40

In light of the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that the grant 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 prearrest bail to the petitioner and the same is liabte to be dismissed.

¶41