Dismissed

Thimmaipally Sidda Goud alias Siddu Goud v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Dec 2025CRLP/15193/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in an Alprazolam seizure case, claiming implication solely on a co-accused's police confession with no contraband seized from him. The court held that in NDPS matters anticipatory bail requires caution where investigation is nascent and declined protection, dismissing the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Thimmaipally Sidda Goud alias Siddu Goud Vs The State of… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^338s I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEI/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 15193 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Thimmaipally Sidda Goud @ Siddu Goud, s/o Laxma Goud aged about 29 years, occ Business, r/o H.No. 1-60, Jakkanpet, Bhupathipur, Ivledak District

¶9

...Petitioner/Accused No.4

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, through S.H.O., Mugpal Police Station, Nizamabad District, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad

¶12

... Res ponde nUCom plainant

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner herein on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with FIR No. 169 of 2025 of Mugpal Police Station, Nizamabad District

¶14

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N Ravi ,Advocate for the^{Petitionerand} Sri D^{ArunKumar,the Additional Public} Prosecutor on behalf of the Sole Respondent.

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶17

AT HYDERABAD

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION No.15193 of 2025

¶20

DATE:15.12.2O25

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

Thimmaipally Sidda Goud

¶23

.....petitioner/accused No-4

¶24

And

¶25

The State of Telangana,

¶26

Rep. by its tlublic Prosecutor,

¶27

Uigtr Court for the State of Telangana

¶28

at Hyderabad.

¶29

.... Respondent/ complainant

¶30

ORDER

¶31

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short BNSSJ for grant of prearrest bail to the petitioner, u'ho is arrayed as accused No.4 in Crime No. 169 of 2025 before the Mugpal police Station, Nizamabad

¶32

SI{S,J Crl.P.No.15193 of 2025

¶33

District, registered for the oflences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 22(cl and 29 of NDPS Act

¶34

The brief facts of the case are that on 27.10.2025, thc SHO of Mugpal PS received credible information^.that two persons were bringing Alprazolam to Thanakurdh village for mixing it in toddy. After informing superiors and securing panch witnesses, the police team conducted surveillance near the Thanakurdh village arch and intercepted two suspects arriving on a scooty. Upon question ing, both accused voluntarily produced Alprazolam packets from their pant pockets. The police seized 4O8 grams from A1 and 182 grams from A2, along with their mobile phones and the vehicle. Both accused confessed that they had procured Alprazolam from one Usha Goud to adulterate toddy for increasing sales and were transporting it to their shop. After the seizure and preparation of panchanama, the accused and property were brought to the police station. A3, the alleged suppller, was reported absconding.

¶35

Heard Sri N. Ravi, 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.

¶36

¶37

SKS,J Crl.P.No.15193 of 2025

¶38

I-earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was innocent and had been falsely implicated solely on the basis of the confessional statcment ol' a co-accused. He lurther submitted that the name of the pctitioner did not appear in the FIR and no contraband was seized from him, nor was he present at the scene of offence. He contended that a confession made to the police by a co-accused was inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act and could not forn.r the basis of implication in an NDPS case. Except for the allegecl statement of A 1 , there was no independent or reliable material connecting the petitioner to the offence. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition.

¶39

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor 5. . opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner is a drug peddler. He further submitted that the investigation is in progress and if the petitioner is released on pre-arrest bail, at this stage, he may tamper u,ith the evidence and may threaten the witnesses. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

¶40

In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it is noted that the limitcd grievance of learned counsel for the

¶41

¶42

¶43

SKS,J Crl.P.No.l5193 of2025

¶44

petitioner is that the petitioner was lalsely implicated in the case and that petitioncr is no way concerned with the alleged offence punishable under NDPS Act, as no contraband was seized from his possession, whereas, it is the specific stand of learned Additional Fublic Proseculor that petitioner is actively involved with other accused in their illegal activities.

¶45

At this stage, it is pertinent to note that in cases arising under the NDPS Act, the Court is required to exercise great caution '*,hile^{considering a prayer for anticipatorybail, keeping in viewthe} nature of allegations, gravity of the offence, and the necessity of custodial interrogation for a fair and effective investigation. The Hon'ble High Court, as affirmed by the Hontrle Supreme Court in Dinesh Chander v. State of Haryanal, has observed that where the investigation materials disclose a pima /acie 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 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 the role of the petitioner

¶46

'sLn 1c,t.1^{No.9540 of 2025}

¶47

¶48

SKS,J Crl.P.No.15193 of2025

¶49

requires thorough examination. In such circumstances, the Court may rightly decline to extend the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail, leaving it open to the accused to surrender before the j urisdictional Court and seek regular bail, which shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶50

In vievg thereof, this criminal petition is dismissed.

¶51

Miscellancous applications, if ant, pending, shall stand

¶52

closed.

¶53

SO/- M. JAWAHAR EEDDY As^{sI srANr_} -BEGI-srRA^R \ \ ,-----

¶54

,TRUE COPY//

¶55

SECTION OFFICER

¶56

To, 1. The ll Additional^{JudicialFirst Class Magistrate Nizamabad} 2.TheStationHouseOfficer,MugpalPoliceStation,NizamabadDistrict o. t*o ccs^{to the Public Prosecutor,High court for the state of Telanganaat} Hyderabad.(OUT)

¶57