TELANGANA HIGH COURT
J. Sreenivas Rao, J.
Ravutla Prashanth Goud – Petitioner
versus
State of Telangana and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 4405 of 2026
Decided on 10.4.2026
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Pranathi Reddy L., Advocate
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor
IMPORTANT POINT
Disputed questions of facts cannot be adjudicated in a proceedings under Section 528 of BNSS/482 of Cr.P.C. at threshold.
Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 8(c) r/w 22(c) and 29 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Recovery of Alprazolam – Quashing petition – Where investigation material discloses a prima facie link of accused with 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 process of investigation – There are disputed questions of facts and same cannot be adjudicated in a proceedings under Section 528 of BNSS/482 of Cr.P.C. at threshold – Complaint prima facie discloses ingredients of alleged offence and matter is required to be examined during course of investigation, especially when investigation is under progress – Quashing Petition dismissed. (Paras 6, 7, 9, 13 and 14)
Result: Criminal Petition dismissed.
ORDER
This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.649 of 2025 of Armoor Police Station, Nizamabad District, registered for the offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the NDPS Act’).
2. Brief facts of the case:
On 10.12.2025, on credible information received at the police station regarding mixing of Alprazolam in toddy at Mahalaxmi Colony, Armoor, the Sub Inspector of Police, Armoor Police Station, complied with Section 42 NDPS Act by reducing the information into writing, informing the superior officer, and making a GD entry. After obtaining necessary permissions and securing independent panch witnesses through the Municipal Commissioner, he along with other excise officials, proceeded to the spot. Upon interrogation, accused Nos.1 and 2 admitted the presence of Alprazolam in the house. A search and seizure operation was conducted in accordance with law, leading to recovery of 499.500 grams of suspected Alprazolam, properly sealed, labelled M-1 and M-2, and documented through a seizure panchanama. Mobile phones and other material objects were alsoseized, and the entire process was videographed. During investigation, accused Nos.1 and 2disclosed that they, along with the petitioner, conspired to procure Alprazolam and mix it with toddy to earn profits, thereby endangering public health. The contraband was allegedly sourced by the petitioner and distributed for use in toddy preparation at their depot. The seized material was deposited in the malkhana, and accused Nos.1 and 2 and the petitioner were medically examined and found fit for remand. Based on the material collected, a case in Crime No.649of 2025was registered under Sections 8(c)read with22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, and investigation proceeded with examination of witnesses, scene of offence panchanama, and collection of further evidence establishing illegal possession, conspiracy, and commercial-scale narcotics activity.
3. Heard Mrs. L. Pranathi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentNos.1 and 2-State.
4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:
4.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act are not attracted against the petitioner. The police have not seized any contraband from the possession of the petitioner and he was not present at the scene of offence. However, the petitioner has been implicated as an accused solely based on the confessional statement given by accused No.1 and the same is not permissible under law as per the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 67 of the NDPS. She further submitted that no prima facie material exists connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.
4.2. In support of her contention, she relied upon the following orders:
1. C. Adithya Narayana Reddy v. The State of Telangana, 2025 (2) ALD (Crl.) 64 and;
2. Ismail Khan and another v. State of M.P., 2019 SCC OnLine MP 944.
5. Submissions of learned Additional Public Prosecutor:
5.1 Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner, which attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. During the course of investigation, it is revealed that accused No.1 and the petitioner are brothers and partners, running a toddy business, where they mixed Alprazolam in toddy to increase sales and earn higher profits. He further submit