Telangana High Court
Y. Mahesh vs The Union Of India on 26 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3046 OF 2026
DATE :26.03.2026
Between :
Y. Mahesh
... Petitioner/Accused
And
The Union of India,
Through its Spl. P.P. for
Narcotics Control Bureau,
High Court, Hyderabad
... Respondent/Complainant
: ORDER :
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner seeking bail in the event of his arrest in connection with case Number NCB.F.No.IV/14/31/Crime No.10 of 2025 of Narcotics Control Bureau, Hyderabad Zone. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 8(c) r/w.22 (c), 28 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').
-2-
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is arrayed as an accused in the above crime primarily on the basis of a statement allegedly made by co-accused Thatipamula Prasanth before the NCB officials. The prosecution case is that on 05.12.2025, officials of the Narcotics Control Bureau apprehended the said Prasanth and seized 25 LSD blots weighing 0.29 grams from his possession, and the entire contraband was recovered exclusively from him.
3. Heard Sri V. Nagaraju Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Naraparaju Avaneesh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was neither present at the time of seizure nor any contraband was recovered from his possession or premises, and no search was conducted at his residence. It is submitted that there is no material to establish that the petitioner had conscious possession, knowledge, or control over the alleged contraband, and that the parcel in question was intercepted prior to delivery, with no evidence to show that the petitioner was aware of its contents or had facilitated its dispatch. The implication of the petitioner is stated to be based solely on the -3- alleged statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and the mention of his name and mobile number on the parcel, without any supporting evidence such as financial transactions, digital records, courier details, or proof of payment. It is further contended that such implication is the result of a roving enquiry rather than a bona fide investigation, and that mere mention of a name or number does not establish custody, control, or constructive possession. The learned counsel submits that the case against the petitioner rests only on the alleged confession of the co-accused, which is not substantive evidence and cannot form the sole basis for arrest or prosecution, particularly in the absence of any recovery pursuant to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident with deep roots in society and is willing to cooperate with the investigation.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed bail contending that on 03.12.2025, the officials of the Narcotics Control Bureau, Hyderabad Zonal Unit, received credible information regarding a parcel bearing EMS Speed Post tracking number ED982767151IN, suspected to contain LSD, addressed to Prashanth Kumar at Borabanda, Hyderabad, and upon acting on the said information, a team -4- conducted a search in accordance with law in the presence of independent witnesses, during which a sealed envelope containing 25 LSD blot papers weighing 0.29 grams, constituting commercial quantity, was recovered. He further submitted that the accused, Thatipamula Prasanth, was present at the premises, admitted receipt of the parcel, and in his voluntary statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, confessed that he was aware of its contents and that it was arranged through his associate, thereby revealing the involvement of petitioner herein in procuring and facilitating the delivery of the contraband. He further contended that as the seized substance is of commercial quantity, the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted. It is also submitted that the allegations disclose organized trafficking of psychotropic substances, the investigation is still in progress to trace the source and network, and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to unearth the larger conspiracy, and therefore, grant of anticipatory bail at this stage would hamper the investigation; moreover, it is contended that the petitioner has approached the Court by suppressing material facts. As such, petitioner is not entitled to bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.
-5-
6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it is noted that the limited grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the case solely basing on the confession made by co-accused and that petitioner is no way concerned with the alleged offence punishable under NDPS Act, as no contraband was seized from his possession, whereas, it is the specific stand of learned Standing Counsel that petitioner is actively involved in this case with other accused in his illegal activities.
7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that in cases arising under the NDPS Act, the Court is required to exercise great caution while considering a prayer for anticipatory bail, keeping in view the nature of allegations, gravity of offence, and the necessity of custodial interrogation for a fair and effective investigation. The Hon'ble High Court, as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Chander v. State of Haryana 1, has observed that where the investigation materials disclose a prima facie link of the accused with the alleged offence, such as his involvement being reflected from statements 1 SLP (Crl.) No. 9540 of 2025 -6- of co-accused, electronic communication, or financial transactions, grant of pre-arrest protection would seriously hamper the process of investigation. The settled position of law is that anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of routine or on mere assertion of innocence, particularly when the investigation is at a nascent stage and the role of petitioner requires thorough examination. In such circumstances, the Court may rightly decline to extend the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail, leaving it open to the accused to surrender before the jurisdictional Court and seek regular bail, which shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. As such, petitioner is not entitled for bail at this stage and the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date :26.03.2026 Rds