Mohammed Mansoor Ahmed @ Amir Vs The State of Telangana

Petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 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 his arrest in connection with FIR No. 231 of 2024 of Gummadidala Police Station, Sangareddy District.

¶14

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N RAVI Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Sole Respondent.

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

,-

¶17

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA}

¶18

CRIMINAL PETITION^{No.21O8of 2o25}

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This Criminal^{Petition is filed underSection482 of} Bharatiya^{Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023 (for shorl- 'BNSSI} for grant of^{pre-arrestbail to the petitioner, who is arrayedas} accused No.1O in^{Crime No'231 of2024 before the} Gummadidala^{Police Station,Sangareddy District'}

¶21

The brief facts^{of the case are that on 3l '12 '2024} '^at l2:3O hours, a complaint^{was lodged by M'Maheshwar} Reddy, Sub-Inspector^{of Police, Gummadidala'stating that} credible^{inJbrmationwas receivedregardingtheillegal} transportation^{of alprazolamat the Toll Gate' Gummadidala} village. A raid^{was conducted, and Dollari Sailu Raju was} caught with^{350 grams of alprazolarnworth Rs'3'5o'O0O/-'} The accuserl^{confessedto transportingthe substance'which} was seized aiong^{with his bike and mobile phone' A case was} registered under^{the NDPSAct-1985,and the accusedwas} produced br:fore the^{court for legal action'}

¶22

-_!

¶23

2

¶24

SKS, .' Crl.P.No.2108 of 2025

¶25

Heard Sri N. Ravi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Sri Syed yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Pubiic Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated in the case based on a confessional statement of co-accused, which is not substantial evidence. He further submitted that the petitioner was implicated for statistical purposes and only learned of his involvement when police visited his house. The case diary mistakenly refers to him as "Amir," and the complaint and remand case diary do not mention his involvement. The petitioner has no criminal record, comes from a respectable family, and is not accused of possessing any contraband. Therefore, prayed this Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

¶27

On the other hand, learned Additional public prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner, stating ttlat the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature. At this stage,

¶28

),

¶29

3

¶30

SKS, J Crl P.No.210B of2025

¶31

( t

¶32

granting 01 pre-arrest bail to the petitioner does not arise. I llcl CiCrI^(', I lc pf ij-) cu Lllc i-OLrI t LU UrSliIlsS Llis wlilirillar Petition,

¶33

Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the primarv contention of learned counsel for^petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail as no contraband was seized from his possession and that he is innocent and no way connected with the offence as alleged. However, it is pertinent to mention that the offence alieged against the petitioner was altered and the present case is lor the offences punishable under NDPS Act.

¶34

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 Anarul SK v. State of West Bengal^l the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that grant of anticipatory bail in cases involvrng NDPS is a very serious issue.

¶35

I Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)No.12521/2024 dated 19.09.2024

¶36

4

¶37

,i

¶38

SKS, J Crl.P.No.2l08 of 2025

¶39

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 pre arrest bail to the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶40