Dismissed

Susheel Singh Alias T. Susheel Singh v. The State of T. S

Telangana HC1 Jul 2025CRLP/7665/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in an NDPS case involving seizure of 21.48 kgs of dry ganja, a commercial quantity. The court held that regular bail to co-accused did not entitle the petitioner to anticipatory bail and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Susheel Singh Alias T. Susheel Singh Vs The State of T. S — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7665 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Susheel Singh Alias T. Susheel Singh, S/o. Late Dayanand Aged 50 years, Occ Labourer, R/o. HNo.14- 10-531, Nawyouwak Sewadal, Jaali Hanuman, Hyderabad

¶9

...Petitioner/Accused No.1 2

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of T. S,, Through, Public Prosecutor, P.S. Excise Dhoolpet, Hyd

¶12

... RespondenUCom plainant

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant on anticipatory bail in case of arrest to the petitioner/Accused No.12 in Crime No.30/2025 offence U/s. 8 (c) R/w 20 (b)(iixc) of NDPS Act1985, of P.S. Excise Dhoolpet, on the file of I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad on such terms and conditions which deems fit and proper in the interest 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 Suresh Singh, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent.

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

¶17

TrIE HON'BLE SFII JIJSTICE J.SFIEENIVAS FIAO

¶18

CRTMINAL PETITION No.7665 of 2025

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Criminal Petition has becn hled r-rnder SecLion 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') by the petitioner / accr-rsed No.12, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with crirne No.30 of 2025 on the hle of the Prohibition and Excise Station, Dhoolpet registered for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 2O(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sr,rbstances Act, I 989 (for short 'NDPS Act').

¶21

Heard Mr. Suresh Singh, Iearned counsel for the petitioncr and Mr. Syed Yasar Marnoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

¶22

Thc case of prosecution in brief is that on 72.O4.2025 at lO 25 a.m., on reliable information regarding illegai possession, sale and transportation of dry ganja in Honda Activa bearing No. AP 11 AH 7660, the ProLribition and Excise Sub-Inspector and staff conducted rolrte watch near Rani Avanthi Bai Statue, Arnalapur, 'lappa Chabutra, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad intercepted the above vehicle belongs to accused No. I along with pillion

¶23

¶24

t
.d

¶25

rider/accr-rsed No.2 and found in possession of 21.48 kgs of dry ganj a for sale purpose, seized the same and as per confession of accr-rsed No.1, involvernent of accused Nos.3 to 15 came into iight. Then accused Nos.1 and 2 along with seized contraband, vehicle, cell phone of accused were handed over to the Station House Officer. Based on the same, the present crime was registered for the aloresaid offences

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner kras nol committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in the present crime basing on the confession statement given by the othcr accused. The alleged contraband seized frorn the other accused. Hence the ingredients of (c) r/w 2o(b)(iil(C) of the NDPS Act are not attracted against the petitioner. He further submitted that the otlrer accused were already enlarged on bail Hence prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶27

Per contra, learned Additional Public Proseclrtor submitted that the petitioner has comrnitted the grave offence and the police seized 21.48 kgs of dry ganja, which is cornrnercial quantity. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek anticipalory bail rnerely o,n LI:.e ground

¶28

that other accused were granted regular bail and the investigation is under progress. Hence the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶29

Having considered the rival st.bmissions made by the respective parties and after pen_rsal of the material availabic on record, it reveals that the police seized the contraband namely 21.4g kgs of dry ganja, which is cornrnercial quantity. It is needless to say tflat merely on thc ground of granting regular bail to the other accused, the petitioner is not entitled for granting anticipatory bail, especially when the investigation is under progress. Taking into consideration the facts ald circumstances of the case and also the gr-avity of the offence, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail fo the petitioner.

¶30