Dismissed¶42

Gajender Singh v. The State of Telangana

Anticipatory bail – NDPS Act – Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B)

Telangana HC19 Feb 2025CRLP/1182/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court, Criminal Petition No.1182 of 2025, decided 19.02.2025 by K. Sujana, J. Pre-arrest bail under S.482 BNSS refused to Gajender Singh (A.3) in FIR No.347/2024 of P.S. Asif Nagar, Hyderabad, for offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act; 10 kg dry Ganja seized from A.1 (commercial quantity); petitioner implicated on co-accused confession; reliance on Anarul SK v. State of West Bengal; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Grant of pre-arrest bail at a stage when the investigation is still in progress may impede the investigative process and potentially prejudice the prosecution case; therefore the petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. ¶41

Gajender Singh Vs The State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁸⁵ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITIO NNO :1182 0F 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

GAJENDER SINGH, S/o. Rajkumar Singh, aqed about 25 vears. OccBusiness. R/o. H.No.1 4-11-262. Virjanand Nagar Nata, Dhoolpet, liyderabad _ 06.

¶9

... Petitioner/Accused

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangjrna, Through SHO pS Asif Nagar, Hyderabad, Re.presented by its Public prosecutor, High court i6r tl"re'siate tilerangana, at Hyderabad.

¶12

...RespondenUComplainant

¶13

Petition under section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal pelition, the High court may be pleased to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner/ Accused No.J in the ur"nt of his arrest in FIR No.347 of 2024 dated 30/06/2024 on the file of sHo ps Asif Nagar, Hyderabad

¶14

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri UMESH slNGH, Advocate for the Petitioner and the public prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent.

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

¶17

THN HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA^.

¶18

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1182 of 2O25^.

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This criminal petition is hled by the petitioner/A.3 seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR.No.347 of 2024 of Asif Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 8 (c) r/w.20^{(b) (ii)} (B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS ActJ.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that on 30.06.2024 at 23.30 hours, a complaint was received from the S.l of Police, Asif Nagar Police Station, wherein it is stated that while conducting vehicle check A. 1 was coming from bylane of Dattatreya Colony of Asif Nagar carrying one polythene rice bag and on suspicion, they stopped him and took him into custody. On enquiry, he revealed that he had 10 Kgs of dry Gan-ia and also disclosed his details and the names of other accused. In the confession statement it is stated that he used to procure Ganja @ Rs.4000/- to Rs.5000/- per KG from one Lakhan Singh @ Lakhan who is A.2, for selling it to sub-

¶22

¶23

:'_\

¶24

peddlers for Rs.8O00/- to Rs. 10,OOO/- per KG and the subpeddlers used to seIl it in small sachets to the needy customers. Hence, complaint was lodged against the accused-

¶25

Heard Sri Umesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AddiLional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

¶26

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was never involved in this business with A. l, and there is no evidence to show that petitioner is doing this business. A.2 in this case is the prime accused as he is the main supplier and used to purchase Ganja in huge quantit5r and supply to A. 1 . He further stated that petitioner is implicated in this case basing on the confession of co-accused. Petitioner is innocent of the said offences. The Ganja seized in this case was from A.1 but not from this petitioner. As such, prayed this Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

¶27

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail on the ground that 1O kgs of Ganja was seized from the possession of accused, which is a commercial quantity. If bail is granted, petitioner may commit similar

<br>)

I {

offences. As such prayed this Court to dismiss this bail application.

¶33

Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record,'the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is lhat pel.itioner is implicated in this case basing on the confession of other accused. Petitioner is no way concerned with the alleged offences, whereas, it is the specific stand of learned Additional Public Prosecutor that petitioner is actively involved in this case.

¶34

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 undermine public interest in preventing and controlling these offences.

¶35

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 invesfigation and enable the accused to destroy evidence. Further, in the

case of Anarul SK v. State of [Iest Bengal r the Hon,ble Supreme Court observed that grant of anticipatory bail in cases involving NDPS is a very serious issue.

¶41

In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that 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 prosecution, as such, there are no merits in this criminal petition to grant pre_ arrest bail to the petitioner and the same is iiable to be dismissed.

¶42

1O. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is dismissed.

¶43

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶44

Sd/. L. LAKSH IBABU ASSISTANT RE ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

To,