Dismissed

K. Nithu Bai v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Feb 2025CRLP/16307/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought by A-2 in a NDPS case registered after recovery of 1.53 kg dry ganja from co-accused who implicated the petitioner as supplier. Court noted petitioner's alleged involvement in other similar cases, held commercial quantity seized and pre-arrest bail would hamper investigation, and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

K. Nithu Bai Vs The State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 16307 0F 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

[ ryithq^{Bai, Wo. K. lritunu Singh,Aged about 49 years,} Occ. Housewife. R/o H.No.1-2414, Lodha Basthi, Nanakiamgu-da, Serilingam[alli, Fiyderabad - 50OOOS.

¶8

...Petitioner/A-2

¶9

AND

¶10

The state of relangana, Rep. by its public prosecutor Hiqh court for the state of .lelangana^{At Hyderabad Through prohibitionand Excise p.S.,'Dhoolpet,} Hyderabad.

¶11

... Res pondenUCom pla ina nt

¶12

Petition under section 528 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/A-2 on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest of the Petition erlA-2 in connection with coR No,270 of 2024 on the file of the Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Dhoolpet, Hyderabadand.

¶13

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri cH Ravinder, Advocate for the Petitioner and the public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent State,

¶14

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶15

¶16

THE HOHOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K, SUJANA

¶17

CRIMIITAL PETITION No.163O7 of 20,24

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

The present Criminal Petition is hled praying this Court to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.2 in COR.No.270 of 2024 before the prohibition and Excise Police Station, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 2O(b)(ii)(b) of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotroprc Substances Act, 19g5, (for short 'NDPS').

¶20

The brief facts of the case are that on December 72,2024, Excise P.S. Dhoolpet oflicials, acting on credible information, apprehended A1/Angoori Bai (a1so known as Aruna Bai) near Ganesh Ghat, Dhoolpet, and discovered 1.53 kilograms of dry ganja in her handbag. During questioning, A1 revealed that she was involved in the ganja trade and had previously suppiied ganja to several individuals, including the petitioner. She further stated that the seized ganja belonged to the petitioner, who had given it to her for sale at Attapur, leading to the registration of COR No.27O/2024 and the arrest of AngooriBai

¶21

¶22

SKS,J Crl.P.No.l6307 of 2024

¶23

as A-1, with the petitioner impiicated as A-2. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is hled.

¶24

Heard Sri CH Ravinder, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent - State.

¶25

l,earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is being intentionally harassed by the police, who have previously implicated her in false criminal cases, including a PD case that was recently quashed by this Court. He contended that she has been falsely implicated in the current case, a NDPS case, solely based on a confessional statement obtained by force, which is a weak piece of evidence. He lamented that implication of petitioner is an abuse and misuse of law, violating her fundamental rights under Article 2l of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

¶26

On the other hald, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the quantum of recovery of contraband constitutes commercial quantity and that the same was in

¶27

¶28

SKS,J CrI.P No.16307 oI2024

¶29

¶30

possession of petitioner and other accused. He^further contended that the petitioner/A2 is a^{habitualoffenderwith 13} pending NDPS cases, and if enlarged on anticipatory bail,^she will likely resume selling ganja, utilizing^{juvenile henchmen and} family members, and that she may also intimidate^witnesses, tamper^q,ith evidence, and continue committing^offences, thereby undermining the investigation and^{judicialprocess.} Therefore, pral.ed the Court to dismiss the criminal^petition.

¶31

Having regard to the riva-l submissions made and on^gciing through the material placed on record, it is noted that^the primary contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that this anticipatory bail may be allowed as the seized contraband^was on11, 1 .53kgs of ganja which can be considered as^small quantiry. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Another¹ whereunder, the proceedings against the accused thereof were quashed observing that 'there is no recouery from the residence of the appellant of the countetfeit notes and that there is no other mateial on the basis of which euen a strong

¶32

'^(zors) ro scc saz

¶33

¶34

SKS,J Crt.P No.16307 of 2024

¶35

suspic"ton could be aroused TLe seized antraband^is commercial quantitg'. However, it is^pertinent to^mention that the present case is for the offences punishable^{underNDPSAcL.}

¶36

karned counsel for petitioner further relied on^the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Singh Vs. State of Haryana2,^{whereunder,anticipatory} bail was granted on seizure of 1.75^{kgs observing that petitioner} was not present at the spot but was named^{by the co accused,} whereas, in the present case, the^{petitioner is implicatedin 12} other cases of similar nature. However,^{the same does not come} to the aid of petitioner as there are^{factual differencesbetween} the said case and the case on hand.

¶37

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has^{consistentiyheld that} anticipatory bail should not^{be granted in NDPS cases as a} matter of routine, as the^{same may hamperthe investigation} ald enable the accused to destroy^{evidence.Further, in the case} of Aaarul SK Vs. State of^{West Bengal3the Hon'ble Supreme} Court observed that^{grantof aoticipatory bail in cases involving} NDPS is a very serious issue.

¶38

'z^{2023scc ontine sc 1235}

¶39

r Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C(1.\No.7262712024 Cated 19.09.2024

¶40

¶41

SKS,J Crl.P.No. 16307 of 2024

¶42

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 petilion to grant prearres[ bail to the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismrssed.

¶43

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed

¶44

Miscella neous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ^[

¶49

U SECTION OFFICER

¶50

To,

¶51

The Metropolrtan Sessions Judge, Nampally Criminal Courts, Hyderabad.

¶52

The Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise P.S., Dhoolpet, Hyderabad.

¶53

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad[OUT]. to Sri. CH Ravinder Advocate [OPUC]

¶54

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad[OUT]. to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶55