IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.17820 of 2025 DATE: 08.01.2026 BETWEEN:

Shaik Farook Kureshi …..petitioner/accused No.2 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 petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.2 in COR No.290 of 2025 before the Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Nizamabad District, 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 12.08.2025, the Prohibition and Excise Officers, Nizamabad, detected illegal possession and transportation of 6.5 kgs of dry ganja at Aman Nagar, Nizamabad, and arrested accused No.1 at the spot. The contraband, vehicle and mobile phone were seized from accused No.1, who allegedly disclosed the name of the petitioner during enquiry.

3. Heard Sri P. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner 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 the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case and was not present at the scene of offence and that the entire case against the petitioner rested solely on the confession of accused No.1, which was inadmissible in law, and no independent or corroborative material was collected to link the petitioner with the seized contraband. The learned counsel further submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not required, that there was no prima facie case against him. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner 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 Additional Public Prosecutor that petitioner is actively involved with other accused in their 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 the 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, SLP (Crl.) No. 9540 of 2025, 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, the 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 the petitioner requires thorough examination. In such circumstances, the Court