Telangana High Court
K. Nithu Bai vs The State Of Telangana on 5 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.16307 of 2024
ORDER:
The present Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to
grant pre arrest bail to the petitioner who is arrayed as accused
No.2 in COR.No.270 of 2024 before the Prohibition and Excise
Police Station, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(b) of the
Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for
short 'NDPS').
2. The brief facts of the case are that on December 12, 2024,
Excise P.S. Dhoolpet officials, acting on credible information,
apprehended A1/Angoori Bai (also known as Aruna Bai) near
Ganesh Ghat, Dhoolpet, and discovered 1.53 kilograms of dry
ganja in her handbag. During questioning, A1 revealed that she
was involved in the ganja trade and had previously supplied
ganja to several individuals, including the petitioner. She
further stated that the seized ganja belonged to the petitioner,
who had given it to her for sale at Attapur, leading to the
registration of COR No.270/2024 and the arrest of AngooriBai
SKS,J
as A-1, with the petitioner implicated as A-2. Aggrieved thereby,
this Criminal Petition is filed.
3. Heard Sri CH Ravinder, learned counsel for petitioner,
and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent - State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is being intentionally harassed by the police, who
have previously implicated her in false criminal cases, including
a PD case that was recently quashed by this Court. He
contended that she has been falsely implicated in the current
case, a NDPS case, solely based on a confessional statement
obtained by force, which is a weak piece of evidence. He
lamented that implication of petitioner is an abuse and misuse
of law, violating her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant
bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner stating that the quantum of recovery of contraband
constitutes commercial quantity and that the same was in
SKS,J
possession of petitioner and other accused. He further
contended that the petitioner/A2 is a habitual offender with 13
pending NDPS cases, and if enlarged on anticipatory bail, she
will likely resume selling ganja, utilizing juvenile henchmen and
family members, and that she may also intimidate witnesses,
tamper with evidence, and continue committing offences,
thereby undermining the investigation and judicial process.
Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going
through the material placed on record, it is noted that the
primary contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that this
anticipatory bail may be allowed as the seized contraband was
only 1.53kgs of ganja which can be considered as small
quantity. In support of his contention, he relied on the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and
Another 1 whereunder, the proceedings against the accused
thereof were quashed observing that 'there is no recovery from
the residence of the appellant of the counterfeit notes and that
there is no other material on the basis of which even a strong
(2019) 16 SCC 547
SKS,J
suspicion could be aroused . The seized contraband is
commercial quantity'. However, it is pertinent to mention that
the present case is for the offences punishable under NDPS Act.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner further relied on the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Vijay Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2, whereunder, anticipatory
bail was granted on seizure of 1.75 kgs observing that petitioner
was not present at the spot but was named by the co accused,
whereas, in the present case, the petitioner is implicated in 12
other cases of similar nature. However, the same does not come
to the aid of petitioner as there are factual differences between
the said case and the case on hand.
8. 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 Vs. State of West Bengal 3 the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed that grant of anticipatory bail in cases involving
NDPS is a very serious issue.
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1235
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)No.12621/2024 dated 19.09.2024
SKS,J
9. 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.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 05.02.2025
PT
