IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2575 OF 2026 DATE : 16.03.2026 Between :

Shaik Amer @ Waseem Khan … Petitioner/A.5 And The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, Through PS Patancheru, Sangareddy … Respondent : ORDER :

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner/A.5 seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in SC NDPS No.133 of 2025 on the file of I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy in Cr.No.1212 of 2023 of Patancheru Police Station, Sangareddy. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 8 (c) r/w.22 (c) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

2. The facts of the case are that on 20.12.2024, the complainant on credible information that two persons would come near AGI/Hindware Company, Isnapur Village, between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to sell MDMA, a psychotropic substance, to customers, after following necessary formalities he along with his staff proceeded to the spot and at about 5:05 p.m., two suspects were identified and apprehended and later taken to a nearby Traffic Police Outpost at Isnapur for further proceedings. On enquiry, they disclosed their identities as Mohammed Salim Abdul Hamid Shaikh (A.3) and Mukesh Dubey (A6), residents of Mumbai, who admitted their involvement in transporting and supplying MDMA in coordination with other accused persons. Upon search of the backpack carried by A.3, the police seized 1000 grams of MDMA (500 grams each in two packets) along with several mobile phones and other articles under a panchanama and case was registered against the accused.

3. Heard Sri Y.Soma Srinath Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner has no involvement in any illegal activity relating to the sale, possession, or transportation of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. The petitioner was not present at the scene of offence, and no contraband was seized from his possession. The implication of the petitioner is solely based on the confession statement of a co-accused which is inadmissible in evidence. Learned Counsel further submitted that there are procedural lapses in the investigation under the NDPS Act. Hence, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner by allowing this petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail contending that the petitioner herein is a drug peddler and he used to purchase the substance from A.3 and A.4 and sell it to customers. Hence, the petitioner herein also had active role in this offence. If petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he may abscond. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to bail and prayed to dismiss this 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 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 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 in this case 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, keepin