Dev Sony vs The State Of Telangana
2026 Latest Caselaw 736 Tel

Telangana High Court

Dev Sony vs The State Of Telangana on 15 April, 2026

  IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

                       AT HYDERABAD


       THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA


           CRIMINAL PETITION No.4805 of 2026


                      DATE: 15.04.2026


BETWEEN:


Dev Sony
                                      ..... Petitioner/Accused No.3

                              And

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

                            ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS')

for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as

accused No.3 in Crime No.09 of 2025 before the Cyberabad

Narcotics Police Station, TG Anti Narcotics Bureau, registered

for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with

22(c), 20(b)(ii)(A) and 29 of NDPS Act.

SKS,J

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.09.2025, upon

receiving credible information that two individuals were

illegally selling narcotic substances to customers, the police

immediately conducted a raid, apprehended them, and

recovered 10.18 grams of MDMA and 52.67 grams of

hydroponic ganja from their possession. Their statements

were recorded, and based on their alleged confession, the

petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.3. Consequently, a

crime was registered against all the accused for the aforesaid

offences.

3. Heard Sri Lavudya Charan Raj, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M.

Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the

present case, and that there are no specific allegations or any

substantial material to establish his involvement in the

alleged offence. He further submitted that the police are

threatening to reinvestigate the matter and prepare a fresh

SKS,J

remand report with an intention to arrest the petitioner. He

contended that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and

is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation at all

stages and that no recovery has been effected from the

petitioner and that the investigation is substantially

completed and the co-accused had already been granted

regular bail. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-

arrest bail to the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

opposed the grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that the

allegations against the petitioner disclosed his involvement in

the crime. He further submitted that the investigation is at a

crucial stage, the charge sheet was yet to be filed, and if

anticipatory bail was granted, there was every likelihood of the

petitioner influencing witnesses or hampering further

investigation. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the

Criminal petition.

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 was falsely implicated

SKS,J

in the case 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 Additional Public Prosecutor that petitioner is

actively involved with other accused in their 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 the

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 of co-accused, electronic communication, or

financial transactions, the 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

SKS,J

the role of the 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.

8. In view thereof, this criminal petition is dismissed.

However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty

to surrender before the jurisdictional Court and file a regular

bail application. On such filing, the trial Court is directed to

consider and dispose of the same on its own merits, as

expeditiously as possible, and in accordance with law.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 15.04.2026 SS

SKS,J

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4805 of 2026

Date: 15.04.2026

SS