Dismissed

Vikas Singh @ Vikash Singh, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Jul 2025CRLP/8179/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail petition under Section 482 BNSS by accused No.1 in an NDPS case involving seizure of 5 kgs ganja from accused No.2. Court noted prior dismissal and reliance on Supreme Court precedent cautioning against anticipatory bail in NDPS cases during ongoing investigation.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vikas Singh @ Vikash Singh, Vs The State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8179 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

'1. Vikas Singh @ Vikash Singh,, S/o. Kishore Singh, Aged 30 years, Occ Private Service, R/o.H.No 6-22, Alqapur, Puppalguda, K.V.Ranga Reddy.

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO .1

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Through Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶13

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/Accused No.1 on Anticipatory bail 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 GULAB SINGH ,Advocate^for the^Petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No'1 .

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

The H n'ble Sri usti e .Sree Rao Criminal Petition No.817 of2025

¶17

Ordcr

¶18

This fuiminal Petition is filed^{underSection482 of the} Bharatila Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita,^{2023 (for short, 'BNSS')} seeking anticipatory bail to the^{petitioner/accused No.1 in} Crime No.1O64 of 2024 of^{RaidurgamPolice Station,} g,berabad, registered for the offence punishable^{under Section} 8G) r/w' Section 2O(bXri)(B) of^{Narcotic Drugs and} Psychotropic Substances Act,^{1985 (for short 'NDPS Act).} 2. The ca-se of the prosecution^{is that on 26-10.2024at} about 14:OO hours, on^{receipt of crediblein{ormation regarding} illegal possession and sale of^{ganja,the Sub-Inspectorof Police,} Raidurgam Police Station,^{Clberabad,,along with his st'rff'} proceeded to a^{place near Road No.15, PanchavatiC-olonv,} Manikonda.^{()andipet Mandal, and apprehendedaccusedNo'2} and seized 5 kgs of^{gania from her. Basedon the same,the}

¶19

¶20

: i. i-*

¶21

aforesaid crjme was registered against the petitioner/accused No.1 and other accused for the aforesaid offence.

¶22

Fleard Mr. Gulab Singh, leamed counsel for the petitioner/acctsed No.1 and Mr. Syed YasarMamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecuror appearing for the

¶23

respondent/State.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petirioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he is no way concemed with the seizure of contraband and even according to the complaint, seizure panchanama and remand case diary the contraband was seized from the possession of accused No.2 only and based on her confession on1y, the peririoner was falsely implicated in the presenr crime and rhere are no allegations against the peritioner ro connecr him with the present cr-ime and hence, the ingredients of the provisions of NDPS Act are not attracted agairut him. Leamed counsel

¶25

further submitted that the seized contraband of 5 lgs of ganja is an intermediate quantiry and the petitioner be granted I .,

¶26

¶27

anticipatory bail AS he is ready to cooperate with the

¶28

investigation and abide by the conditions as may be imposed bvthis Cout.

¶29

Per cot,lrrt,leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submined that the petitioner/accused No.1 has commined grave offence under the provisions of the NDPS Act and the police have seized 5 kgs of ganja and earlier when the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Cr1.P.No.15684 of zOZ+ seeking anticrpatory bail, the same was drsmissed uide order dated 03.01 .2025 ar,d now the petitioner^{has again} filed^the present crimrnal petition even though there are no^changed circumstances and the investigation is in^{progressand hence,} the petitioner is not entitled for^grant of^{anticipatoty barl.}

¶30

Flaving considered the^rival submissions^{made by learned} counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of^{the matenal} available cn record it reveals that the contraband of S kgiOf ganja^was seized from acctxed No.2 and in^her

¶31

¶32

confessional srarement, she specifically stated she is only an employee of the petitioner/accused No.1. The earlier anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner came ro be dismissed bythis Crrurt airle order dated 03.01.2025 bvgiving cogent reasons and especially by relying upon the principle taid down by the Apex Court in Anarul SK v. State of West Bengalr.

¶33

In Tarabai v. State of Maharashtra,, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that grant of anticipatory bail in NDPS cases rury hamper the investigation and enable the acctued to destroy evidence. Similarly, in Kishore Samrite r.. State of Uttar Pradesh3,, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that anticipatory bail should nor be granred in NDPS cases as a matter of coursc.

¶34