IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.17535 of 2025

DATE: 06.01.2026

BETWEEN:

Maaz Nabi and another

…..petitioner/accused

And

The State of Telangana,

Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,

High Court for the State of Telangana

at Hyderabad.

…..Respondent/complainant

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 petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.3 and 4 in Crime No.168 of 2025 before the

Charminar Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.09.2025, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Charminar, received credible information that a person was going to deliver ganja. Basing on this, he along with staff and panch witnesses reached the spot and apprehended Accused No.2, Ali Bin Hamid. From the motorcycle, they allegedly recovered 2.1 kg of ganja and 55 grams of hydroponic ganja. During interrogation, accused No.2 allegedly confessed and disclosed the names of the petitioners, who were then shown as accused No.3 and 4.

3. Heard Sri Mohd. Muzafferullah Khan, 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 petitioner submitted that there had been no direct or circumstantial evidence linking the petitioners to the offence and that the prosecution relied solely on the confession of accused No.2, which was a weak piece of evidence. He further submitted that Section 37 of the NDPS Act was not attracted, the offences were not punishable with death or life imprisonment, and anticipatory bail could be considered. He contended that the petitioners had no criminal antecedents, were not likely to abscond or tamper with witnesses, and were ready to cooperate with the investigation and furnish sureties. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest 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 petitioner stating that the petitioner is a drug peddler. He further submitted that the investigation is in progress and if the petitioner is released on bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the evidence and may threaten the witnesses. 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 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 Assistant Public Prosecutor that petitioner is actively involved with other accused in their illegal activities. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 598, wherein it was observed that a confession statement cannot be considered at the stage of a bail application. I n the said case, the offences alleged were under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 61(2), 3(5) and 3(8) of the BNS and Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioner are under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.

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