IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.15430 OF 2025

04^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2025

Between :

Shiva @ K.Shivaraj

… Petitioner/A.4

And

The State of Telangana,

Through SHO, P.S. Sangareddy,

Sangareddy District,

Rep., by Public Prosecutor,

High Court at Hyderabad for the

State of Telangana.

… Respondent

ORDER :

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner/A.4 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.332 of 2025 of Sangareddy Town Police Station, Sangareddy District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 8(c) r/w.21(c), 22(C), 27(A), 25, 29 of Narcotic Drugs

and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

2. The facts of the case are that on 29.08.2025 at about 15:05 hours, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sangareddy Town, received information about the illegal manufacturing of Alprazolam at a house in Ganesh Nagar, Sangareddy. He recorded the information in the General Diary, informed his superior officer, secured two mediators, and proceeded to the scene of offence at H.No.5-1-9212/g/A/1. A raid was conducted, during which 270 grams of Alprazolam and other related materials were seized under a confession-cum-seizure panchanama. Accused No.1 confessed the offence, and both A.1 and A.2 admitted their involvement, also naming A.3 and A.4 as co-accused, who were found to be absconding. Based on the panchanama, a case was registered and as per the remand case dairy A.2 was found to have supplied raw materials for the illegal manufacture of Alprazolam. A.1 and A.2 were arrested on 30.08.2025 and remanded to judicial custody. Basing on the complaint, a case was registered against the accused for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri Kasireddy Mohan Chandra Has, learned [

counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-

State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner herein is A.4 and he is innocent of the said offences. Petitioner is falsely implicated in this case basing on the confession of co-accused which is inadmissible in evidence. No contraband was seized from the possession of petitioner and there are no specific allegations against him. The main allegations are against A.1 and A.2. He further submitted that petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature. That he has supported A.1 and A.2 in commission of this offence. Further, the investigation is not yet completed. At this stage, granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, 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 petitioner is falsely implicated in the case solely basing on the confession made by co-accused in whose possession contraband was seized and that petitioner is no way concerned with the alleged offences 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 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 a