Malela Buchanna Goud Vs The State of Telangana

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/Accused No.1 3 on bail rn the event of his arrest in Crime in FIR No.9 of 2025 of P.S. Hyderabad Narcotics in the interests of^justice.

¶14

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T V Ramana Rao .Advocate for the Petitioner and D. Arun Kumar, 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.15929 OF 2025

LA.t2.2025

Between :

Malela Buchanna Goud

Petitioner/A. 13

And

The State o[ Telangana, Rep., tty its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad, Through P.S. Hvdcrabad Narcotics

¶26

.. . Respondent

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This criminal petition is irled under Section 482 of Bharatiy'a Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioncr/A. l3 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.O9 of 2025 of Hyderabad Narcotics Police Station, TG AntiNarcotics Bureau, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioncr arc under Sections 8(cl r /w.22 (c), 27-A and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS ActJ.

¶29

2

¶30

The facts of the case a-re tiaton 14.09:2025 the complainant lodged a complaint stating that on credible information, he conducted a raid at the Medha School premises, Old Bowenpally, and apprehended A.l, who was found manufacturing Alprazolam and supplying it to toddy depots.During the raid, the oflicer seized 3.302 kg of Alprazolam, 1.427 kg of third-stage Alprazolam, 1.510 kg ol second-stage Alpraz.oLam, 1.434 kg of lirst-stage Alprazolam, 13,70O kgs of 2-Amino, S-ChloroBenzophenone,complete manufacturing apparatus and net cash of Rs.21,40,OOO/-.[t was alleged that Al, in collusion with A2 and absconding accused Nos. 3 to 9, was involved in the illegal manufacture and sale of Alprazolam for profit. Based on the said complaint the saicl crime ttas registered and A1 was remanded to judiciat custod-y and has remained in custody since ttren.

¶31

Heard Sri T.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Pr-rbli<: Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

¶32

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is thzrt the entire allegations against the petitioner are false, petitioner is neither involved in toddy business nor supplied contraband^to others. Except the alleged statement of A.5 no other material^is

¶33

3

¶34

available to connect the petitioner to the said crime. Petitioner is 75 years old, effected with Paralysis to his left leg and right hand and also suffering with old age ailments. He further stated that investigation is almost completed except filing of charge sheet. Hence, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶35

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature and the contraband seized is huge commercial quantity. The petitioner herein is the father of A. I and invcstigation is not yet completed. At tl.is stage, granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, he praved thc Court to dismiss this criminal petition.

¶36

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 limited grievance ol learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is falsely implicated in this case solely basing on the confession made by co-accused in whose possession contraband u,as selzed and that petitioner is no way concerned with the alleged offence punishable under NDpS Act, as no contraband was seized from his possession, whereas, it is

¶37

4

¶38

the specific stand of learned Additional Public Prosecutor that petitioner is actively involved in this case with other accused in his illegal activities.

¶39

7 . At this stage, it is pertinent to note that in cases arising under the NDPS Act, the Court is required to exercise great caution while considering a prayer for anticipatory bail, keeping in view the nature of allegations, gravity of offence, and the necessitlr o[ custodial interrogation for a fair and effective investigation. The Hontrle High Court, as affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court in Dinesh Chander v. State of Haryanal, has observed that where the investigation materials disclose a pima facie link of the accused with the alleged offence, such as hls involvement being reflected from statements of co-accused, electronic communication, or hnancial transactions, grant of pre-arrest^protection would seriously hamper the process of investigation. The settled^position of lau' is that anticipatory bail is not to be^granted as a matter ol routine or on mere assertion of innocence,^{particularly when the} investigation is at a nascent stage and the^role of^petitioner requires thorough examination. In such^{circumstances, the} Court may rightly^{clecline to extend the discretionary reliefof}

¶40

I SI-P (Crl.l No. 9540 of 2O25

¶41

5

¶42

anticipatory bail, leaving it open to the accused to surrender before the jurisdictional Court ald seek regular bail, which shall be considered on its own merits and in accordalce with law. As such, pelitioner is not entitled for bail and the same is Iiable to be dismissed.

¶43