CRLP/5057/2026 of Srinivas Vijay Voleti Vs The State of Telangana. on 6 July 2026

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking the relief of anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.7 to 9 in COR.No.96 of 2025 of Excise Police Station, Uppal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 34(a) of Telangana Excise Act, 1968 and Section 9-A read with 25, 25-A and 29 of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance Act..

3. Since the issues raised in these criminal petitions arise out of the same crime and involve common questions of fact and law, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Syed Yasar Mahmood, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

5.1. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.09.2024, upon receipt of credible information regarding the alleged illegal possession of substances regulated under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “the NDPS Act”) at M/s. Vagdevi Innoscience Private Limited, IDA, Nacharam, Uppal, the investigating agency, after complying with the mandatory procedural requirements, proceeded to the premises and conducted a search. During the said search, accused Nos.1 to 6 were found at the premises, and certain chemicals, namely Acetic Anhydride measuring 200 ml, Thionyl Chloride measuring 2.5 litres, Methanol measuring 1101.7 litres, Ethanol measuring 0.350 litres, and suspicious powder weighing about 27 kilograms, were allegedly recovered.

5.2. It is further alleged by the prosecution that during enquiry, accused No.3, who was working as the Research and Development Lab Manager, disclosed that the aforesaid chemicals were being used for the synthesis of Ephedrine from 2-Bromopropiophenone and for further preparation of Methamphetamine from Ephedrine by using Thionyl Chloride. Based on the alleged disclosure statements of the co-accused, the present petitioners have been implicated on the ground that they are associated with the affairs of the company, being its persons in charge/management personnel. It is further alleged that the accused failed to produce valid licences or authorizations permitting possession and use of the seized chemicals. The prosecution asserts that Acetic Anhydride is a controlled substance notified under Schedule-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 2013. On the basis of the complaint, the present crime came to be registered.

6.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1/accused No.7 was merely working as a receptionist and had no role either in the management, accounts, manufacturing process, or day-to-day activities of the company. It is contended that mere employment in the establishment, without any material showing conscious possession, knowledge, or active participation in the alleged offence, cannot constitute sufficient ground for custodial arrest.

6.2. Insofar as accused Nos.8 and 9 are concerned, learned counsel submits that the company is duly registered and possesses necessary permissions issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau for manufacture, distribution, sale, purchase, possession, storage, and consumption of controlled substances specified under Schedule-A of the NDPS (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 2013. It is further submitted that the company also possesses valid authorizations for handling Methanol and other chemicals allegedly seized during the search. According to the petitioners, the prosecution case is substantially based upon the alleged confession/disclosure statements of the co-accused, and there is no independent material at this stage showing their direct involvement in the alleged illegal manufacture of narcotic substances.

6.3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are permanent residents, have no intention to evade the process of law, and are willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. Since they apprehend arrest in connection with the present crime, they seek the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

7. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State submits that during the inspection, the investigating agency found huge quantities of chemicals, including substances capable of being used in the manufacture of narcotic drugs/psychotropic substances. It is contended that the accused failed to immediately produce satisfactory authorizations regarding possession of such chemicals, and therefore the crime was rightly registered. It is further submitted that the investigation is still at a nascent stage, and the licences and permissions relied upon by the petitioners require verification. Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the necessity of custodial interrogation to ascertain the source, purpose, and intended use of the seized substances, learned Additional Public Prosecutor seeks dismissal of the petitions.

8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material available on record.

9. The allegations against the petitioners are primarily that, being connected with the management and affairs of the company, they were responsible for possession of the seized chemicals, which are alleged to be capable of being utilized in the manufacture of narcotic substances. The prosecution has relied upon the statements of the co-accused and the seizure proceedings to connect the petitioners with the alleged offence.

10. The photo copies of the documents placed before this Court by the petitioners, prima facie indicate that the company was granted certain authorizations relating to possession and handling of controlled substances. Whether such permissions were valid and operative on the date of seizure, whether the substances were possessed strictly within the permissible limits, and whether there was any violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act or the NDPS (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 2013, are matters requiring detailed investigation. At the stage of considering an application for anticipatory bail, this Court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of evidence or record any conclusive finding on disputed factual aspects.

11. It is well settled that while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court must maintain a balance between the need for effective investigation and the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Supreme Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is a device to secure individual liberty and must be considered having regard to the nature of allegations, role attributed to the accused, and requirements of investigation.

12. In the instant case, having regard to the fact that the petitioners have placed prima facie material indicating the existence of certain licences/permissions relating to controlled substances, while keeping all issues concerning their validity and alleged violations open for investigation, and considering that custodial interrogation does not appear to be indispensable at this stage, particularly in the absence of any material suggesting that the petitioners are likely to abscond, influence witnesses, or obstruct the course of investigation, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, is inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioners by granting anticipatory bail, subject to appropriate conditions to ensure their cooperation with the investigation and safeguard the interests of the prosecution.

13. Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are allowed, subject to the following conditions: (A) The petitioners/Accused Nos.7 to 9 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Excise Police Station, Uppal, Medchal- Malkajgiri on or before 18.07.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest the Station House Officer shall release them on bail on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each, with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said officer. (B) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating officer on every Tuesday and Saturday between 10.00AM to 03.00PM, for a period of ten (10) weeks from the date of their release on bail and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects. (C) The petitioners shall furnish their complete residential address and contact details to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated throughout the course of investigation. (D) The petitioners shall not either directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or contact any prosecution witness, nor shall they tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (E) The petitioners shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. (F) Any wilful breach or violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall render the petitioners liable to appropriate proceedings before the court below, including cancellation of bail, in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS and other applicable law.

14. It is made clear that any observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present application for anticipatory bail and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

___________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 06.07.2026 mmr

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7961 and 5057 OF 2026

DATE : 06.07.2026

mmr