Telangana High Court
Gadigatla Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 13 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1209 OF 2025
ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/A.2 seeking
pre-arrest bail in connection with Cr.No.228 of 2022 of
Bhadrachalam Town Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem
District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under
Sections 8 (c) r/w.20 (b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.08.2022, while
the police conducting vehicle check at the Forest Check post of
Bhadrachalam, the Sub-Inspector and his team intercepted two
vehicles, a Toyota Innova bearing No.AP 39 CA 0149 and a
Maruti Suzuki Swift bearing AP 35 AF 0378, carrying
contraband dry ganja. The occupants attempted to flee, but one
person, Mulagada Anvesh, was apprehended. Anvesh revealed
that he, along with Gadigatla Kumar and Pallanti Praveen, had
loaded the ganja near Sukumamidi village and were
transporting it to Chennai. A total of 594 kg of ganja, valued at
₹1,18,80,000, was seized from the vehicles, which were also
confiscated. The accused were brought to the Bhadrachalam
Town Police Station, and the seized contraband was weighed
and documented in the presence of panch witnesses. Basing on
the complaint, police registered the case against the accused for
the above offences.
3. Heard Sri M.Praveen, learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent-State.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that
petitioner is innocent of the said offences and that he had no
role in the alleged offence. Petitioner is no way involved in
procurement, possession or transportation of the contraband.
Learned counsel relied on the judgment in Gurbaksh Singh
Sibbia Vs State of Punjab 1 holding that the Court must
consider the petitioner's likelihood to abscond, tamper with
evidence or misuse their liberty if granted bail and the petitioner
herein will cooperate with the investigation. He also relied on
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetra Vs State of Maharashtra 2, wherein it was
observed that anticipatory bail should be granted liberally when
1 (1980) 2 SCC 565
2 (2011) 1 SCC 694
the role of the petitioner is peripheral or minimal. As such,
prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
opposed bail on the ground that 594 kgs of Ganja was seized
from the possession of accused, which is a commercial quantity.
If bail is granted, petitioner may commit similar offences. As
such prayed to dismiss this bail application.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going
through the material placed on record, the contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is falsely implicated
in this case. Petitioner is no way concerned with the alleged
offences, whereas, it is the specific stand of learned Additional
Public Prosecutor that petitioner is actively involved in this case.
7. At this stage, it is pertinent to observe that the Courts
exercise caution while dealing with anticipatory bail petitions in
NDPS cases due to the serious nature of these offences.
Granting anticipatory bail in regular manner may hamper the
investigation, allow the accused to abscond, and undermine
public interest in preventing and controlling these offences.
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 v. 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.
9. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the
opinion that 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 petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date :13.02.2025
Rds
3 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)No.12621/2024 dated 19.09.2024
