[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
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. 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
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
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.
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
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
