Govind @ K.Govind Singh Vs The State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2025)

Govind @ K.Govind Singh Vs The State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner (added as accused No. 13) is entitled to pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail in Crime No. 42 of 2024 of Excise Police Station, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, registered for offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(B)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act. +1 more

Court's answer

Courts exercise caution while dealing with anticipatory bail petitions in NDPS cases due to the serious nature of these offences; granting anticipatory bail in a routine manner may hamper the investigation, allow the accused to abscond, and undermine public interest in preventing and controlling these offences.

Ratio / Principle

As consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 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; in Anarul SK v. State of West Bengal the Supreme Court observed that grant of anticipatory bail in cases involving NDPS is a very serious issue.

Key takeaways

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.ratio¶30
There are no merits in the criminal petition to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed; accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Pre-arrest bail – NDPS Act, Ss. 8(c) r/w 20(B)(ii)(c) – petition under S. 482 BNSS in Crime No. 42/2024, Excise P.S., Narayanaguda – 20.5 kgs of ganja seized from A.1 to A.4 on 17.12.2024; petitioner added as A.13 solely on co-accused confessions; prosecution opposed bail stating the ganja seized is a commercial quantity – Held: courts exercise caution in anticipatory bail petitions in NDPS cases owing to their serious nature; anticipatory bail should not be granted in NDPS cases as a matter of routine as it may hamper investigation and enable destruction of evidence (Supreme Court view in Anarul SK v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No. 12621/2024, relied on); grant of pre-arrest bail while investigation is in progress may impede the investigation and prejudice the prosecution – Criminal Petition dismissed.

[³³⁸⁵ ]

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 774 @F 2025

Between:

Govind @ K.Govind Singh, S/o.Munnu Singh @ K.Munnu Singh Aged about 24 years, occ. Business, R/o, H .No.1-2414, Na nakramguda, Serilingampatly, Gonconda, Hyderabad

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED - 1 3

AND

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of for the State of Telangana, At Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

Petition under Section 482 of BNSS, praying that in the circi-rmstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the petitioner on bail in Crime No.42 ol 2024 on the file of the Police Station. Excise, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad in the event of his arrest,

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A PRABHAKAR RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent;

The Court made the following ORDER:

1

THE: HON'BLE SMT.^{JUSTICE K. SUJANA}

CRIMINAL PETITIO^{N NO.774 0F 2025}

ORDER:

This crirlinai^petition is^{hled by the petitioner/A 13} seeking pre-arr'ost bail^{in connectionwith Cr'No42 ol' 2'J'24 of} Excise Police Station,^{Narayanaguda,Hyderabad The o fences} alleged against'-he^{petitionerare under SectionsU (c) r/w'20 (B)} (ii) (c) of Narco.jc Drugs and^{Psychotropic Substancesr\c1 , 1985} (for short 'NDPS ActJ.

The case of the^{prosecutionis that on 17} '12'2024,^while conducting raids,^{policefound four persons i.e'A L to A'4 in} possession of 2O.5 kgs of Ganja.^{On interrogatior,they} confessed that they^{broughtGanja from A.5 anC CICL, rnd on} further enquiry of A.5^{and CICL, they alleged tchave} transported Ge.nja on the^{instructionsof A.7 ancl A' B from} Andhra-OdisszL Boarder to^{Hyderabadand acr:ordir:tg tothe} confession of h. 1 to A.4^{they are bringing the said Grnjato} deliver the sante to^{A. 11 to A. 13. Basing on the s'aid coniession,} the petitioner here in is^{added as accusedNo. 13 in lhis case'} Basing on the seizure^{panchanama,police regisitered tlLe case} for the above c ffences.

I

2

.)

Heard Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for^the petitioner and learned Additional^{PublicProsecutor appearing} for the respondent-State.

The contention of learned counsel for^{the petitioneris that} petitioner is innocent of the said offence ald that he did^{not ask} for supply of Ganja to others.^{Petitioner is falsely implicatedin} this case basing on the confession^{of A'1 to A.4 and except the} confession statement there is no other^{evidence againstthe} petitioner. As such, prayed to^{grant bail to the petitioner.}

On the other hand, learned^{Additional Public Prosecutor} opposed bail on the ground that^{the Ganja seizedisa} commercial quantity. As such^{prayed to dismissthe bail} application.

Having regard to the rival submissions^{made and on going} through {he material^placed on^{record,the contention of learned} counsel for the^petitioner is^{tJlat petitioner wasfalsely} implicated in this case^{solelyon the basis of confessionmadeby} the other accused in^{whose possessioncontrabandwas seized} and that petitioner is^{no way concerned with the alleged} offences, whereas, it is^{the specifrc stand of learned Additional}

I I

Public Prosecul.or^{that petitioner is actively involvt:din thi ; case'} working hand^{in hand with other accused persons'}

At this stage, it^{is pertinent to observe tLrat the llourts} exercise caution^{while dealingwith anticipatory bail petitLonsin} NDPS cases rlue to^{the serious nature of these' ofl'ences'} Granting^{anticicatory bail in regular manner may hamperthe} investigation,^{a1lowthe accused to abscond, andund':rmine} public interest^{in preventing and controlling theseoffencer;'}

The Horr'ble Supreme^{Court has consistently he d that} anticipatory bail^{should not be grantedin NDPS case s as a} matter of roul.ine,^{as the same may hamper the invesrigation} and enable tht,^{accused to destroyevidenceFurtner, ilt t re case} of Anarul SK v.^{State of WestBengalr the Hon'ble S rpreme} Courtobserve.lthatgrantofanticipatorybailincasesirvolving NDPS is a ver5'^{serious issue.}

g. In f.ight of the^{abovediscussion, this C)ourt is of the} opinion that^{grant of pre-arrestbail at a s[age wten the} invesLigation^s; still^{in progress, mayimpede the in're:'tigative} process and pctentially^{prejudicethe case of the prosecution'as}

t Petition for Special kave to Appeal (Crl )No 12621/2024^c.aterl19)9 '2024

I

l

4

a

such, there a-re no merits in this criminal petition to grant prearrest bail to the petitioner and the same is liabie to be dismissed.

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed

Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.

Sd/. T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

\

To,

//TRUE COPY//

ECTION OFFICER

1 . The ll Addl. Sessions Judge, Hyderabad 2. The Station House Officer, Narayanaguda (Excise) P.S., Hyderabad J..^{One CC to SRI. A PRABHAKAR} Rno Rov ocate [OPUC] 4. Trvo CCs to PUBLTC pnOSfCUrOn, ffigh Court at Hyderabad (OUT) 5. Two CD Copies vSMigh

HIGH COURT

DATED:11l02til02i

t
-<, i l-"rl r,,C
a.
)
I ,:: ts t
fi, a
L13
r]C"tl et-G'
,
8, ,,'
9- (:
/o ^) ;L-.
:'-
..-'-,

ORDER

GRLP.No.t74 of 2O2S

DIS.MISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 'lffi";