The right to bail in NDPS Act cases hinges on fulfilling stringent conditions under Section 37, prioritizing public safety and preventing absconding, especially when accusations involve significant quantities of narcotics.

ORDER :

Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’) / Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS ’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 on bail in Crime No.VIII/10/24/2023-Customs Preventive Commissionerate, Vijayawada, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 20 (b) (ii) (C) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

2. The case of the prosecution is that the Superintendent of Customs Preventive Commissionerate, Vijayawada got information that the petitioners were coming to the lane adjacent to St. John’s High School, Gannavaram in a silver colour car from Visakhapatnam on 12.10.2023 afternoon. Based on the information, the officers of Customs Preventive Commissionerate, Vijayawada along with independent witnesses, intercepted the Volkswagen Vento Car bearing registration No.AP 31 BT 9289 and questioned A1 and A2 and taken them into their custody at 3:00 pm on the same day. On search of the car, they found 99 bags containing ganja totaling 203.306 kgs. On enquiry, A1 and A2 submitted that they purchased the same at Jaggampeta by Raju Ram Chowdary @ Raju Bhai, who escorted them on a motorcycle and directed them to head towards Hyderabad and by the time, the petitioners reached to Gannavaram, the Customs officials took them into their custody. After observing all legal formalities, they were remanded to judicial custody.

3. Ms. M. Nihitha, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are innocents of the alleged offence and have been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioners are the sole earning members of their family and, therefore, their continued incarceration would cause undue hardship to their dependents. The petitioners undertake to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. As the petitioners have been in the judicial custody for the past 641 days, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the petition may be allowed in the interest of justice.

4. Per contra, Smt. Santhi Chandra, Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, having filed a detailed counter, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners, and argued that the securing the personal appearance of the petitioners would be difficult if they are enlarged on bail. The accusation against the petitioners is well founded. A detailed charge sheet was filed. It is contended that if the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that they may abscond, thereby hampering the processes of trial and evading the process of law, and it is urged that the petition may be dismissed.

5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC,. I have perused the record.

6. Now, the point for consideration is:

“Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of bail?”.

7. Ms. M.Nikhitha, the learned counsel for the petitioners, relied on the following judgements. In Narcotic Control Bureau v. Lakhwinder Sing , [2025 SCC OnLine 366], the Hon’ble Apex Court held at paragraph No.7 as under:

“7. At this stage,the learned ASG appearing for the petitioner submitted that the power of the Court was constrained by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which is applicable even at the stage of an appeal. He relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Dadu v. State of Maharashtra. There is no dispute about the fact that the Appellate Court is bound by constraints of Section 37 of the NDPS Act while considering the prayer for the grant of bail during the pendency of a appeal. However, if, in the facts of the case, an accused has undergone a substantial part of the substantive sentence and, considering