Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 15242
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SUJANA, J
Gundrathi Sambashiva Goud – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana. – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11609 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri MP Kashyap
For the Respondents: Sri D. Arun Kumar
Anticipatory bail in drug-related cases requires compelling justification; granting it may impede ongoing investigations.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 8(c) r/w 22 - Anticipatory bail seeking of arrested petitioners in connection with drug-related offences - Application dismissed as affirmed that granting bail could potentially impede the investigation process. (Paras 11, 12)
(B) Investigation and Bail - It is emphasized that anticipatory bail in NDPS cases should only be granted under compelling circumstances, to prevent interference with ongoing investigations. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners are accused in a case involving the possession and adulteration of toddy with narcotic substances, seeking bail after being arrested. Allegations include political motives for their implication.
Findings of Court:
Dismissal of anticipatory bail application as it would obstruct the investigation and involve serious implications for the case.
Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in light of ongoing investigations in a case involving potential commercial quantities of narcotics.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced that anticipatory bail in cases involving narcotics is treated strictly, emphasizing the necessity of rigorous grounds to support such applications in consideration of the nature of the allegations.
Result: Criminal Petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. police conducted a raid resulting in various seizures, with allegations against the accused. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. prosecution argues based on chemical analysis and implies serious charges. (Para 5) |
| 3. court assesses implications of mixed substances and reference to relevant legal standards. (Para 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 4. discussion on limitations of anticipatory bail in drug cases and importance of investigation. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. conclusion drawn dismissing the bail application. (Para 12) |
ORDER :
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’) by the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 seeking anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with crime in C.O.R No.73 of 2025 altered Section of Law from 34(a) of Telangana State Excise Act 1968 to Section 8 (c)r/w.22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) of Prohibition &
Excise Police Station, Gadwal District.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.07.2025 the Assistant Enforcement Sub-Inspector, along with his staff, conducted a raid at an unnumbered house in Gonpad Village, Gadwal Mandal, and seized 60 plastic crates of toddy, each crate containing 12 bottles of 650 ml each; 640 empty plastic crates; 50 kgs of sugar and 5 kgs of paste; and two two- wheelers. The enforcement team arrested Accused No.1 Gundrathi Sambasiva Goud and Accused No.2 Lakinisani Kishore, while Accused No.3 Srinivasulu Goud was found absconding. A notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS was issued to Accused Nos. 1 and 2, and two toddy samples of 350 ml each were drawn. Based on the report case was registered altering the section against the accused for the above offences. under Panchanama and deposited the original case papers, seized contraband, and samples before the Hon’ble Court. One sample was sent to the Government Chemical Laboratory, Hyderabad, for analysis. Further report is awaited upon receipt of the chemical examination report. Subsequently, based on the report from the Assistant Enforcement Sub-Inspector, Prohibition & Excise, Mahabubnagar, the SHO, Gadwal, registered Crime No. 73 of 2025 dated 24.07.2025 under Section 34(a) of the Telangana State Excise Act, 1968 , and later altered the section to Section 8 (c) read with 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985, arraying the petitioners as Accused Nos. 1 to 3.
3. Heard Sri MP Kashyap, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners, who were toddy tappers by profession and respectable law-abiding citizens, had nothing to do with the alleged offence and were falsely implicated for political reasons. He further submitted that no contraband was seized from their possession, that they were not present at the scene of offence, and that the allegations in the FIR were vague and baseless without any independent witnesses and that the Panchanama was illegally recorded, evidence was destroyed in violation of law, and the petitioners were being harassed under the guise of altering sections. He argued that except naming them as accused, nothing incriminating was attributable to the petitioners, and the allegation that A-3 was absconding was false. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioners by allowing this criminal petition.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that basing on a chemical analysis report, the section of law was altered from Section 34(a) of Excise Act, to Section 8 (c) read with 22 of NDPS Act. He submitted that when the seized toddy was sent for laboratory analysis, i.e., it was found that the samples were fermented toddy adulterated with Alprazolam, and the toddy involved in this case is about 4 plastic crates of toddy, each containing 12 bo
