Anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. should be granted sparingly, especially in serious narcotics cases where the applicant's release may impede ongoing investigations.

ORDER :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., has been filed by the Petitioner/A.12, seeking anticipatory bail in Cr.No.51/2023 of Koyyuru Police Station, Alluri Seetha Rama Raju District (formally known as Visakhapatnam District).

2. The above crime was registered against the Petitioner herein and others for the offence punishable under Sections 8 (c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act, 1985.

3. The Prosecution's case, in brief, is that, on 01.09.2023, on receipt of credible information about the illegal transportation of Ganja, the Sub Inspector of Police, along with other staff and mediators, went to Cashew Garden, outskirts of Gummadivani Palem Village, Koyyuru Mandal, Alluri Seetha Rama Raju District, there, A1 to A10 loading their dumped Ganja packets in a Tata India car bearing No.AP31TV8495, and when the Police questioned them, they confessed that they were transporting the said Ganja. Then, A1 to A10 were arrested, and the quantity of 300.9 kgs was seized. Recorded their confession statements before the mediators under the cover of mediator report. During the course of the investigation, A1 to A10 were arrested. On the strength of the mediators' report dated 01.09.2023, the case in Cr. No.51/2023 of Koyyuru Police Station, Alluri Seetha Rama Raju District (formally known as Visakhapatnam District) was registered against the Petitioner/A.12 and others. The Petitioner/A.12, along with the other accused, were found absconding during the course of the investigation.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case; no specific overt acts are attributed against the Petitioner; based on the confessional statement of co- accused, the Petitioner is arrayed as accused. Except the said confessional statement, no other material has been collected to connect the Petitioner in the commission of the offence; Petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and he is ready to furnish sufficient surety.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor filed counter and submitted that the police arrested A1 to A10 and they confessed that, previously, they used to procure the Ganja from the Petitioner/A.12, and sell the same in other states; during the course of investigation, the investigation officer secured the CDRs of A1 and also placed a copy of the CDRs along with the counter; investigation is at crucial stage and charge sheet is not yet filed; the Petitioner/A.12 has no previous antecedents. Hence prayed to dismiss the anticipatory bail application to the Petitioner.

6. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the petition as well as in the counter-affidavit.

7. It is trite law that the power to grant a pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., is extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised sparingly. Thus, pre-arrest bail cannot be granted in a routine manner. The Hon'ble Apex Court, adverting to its previous precedents, has discussed the parameters to be considered while considering pre-arrest bail applications, in the case of State of A.P. v. Bimal Krishna Kundu , [(1997) 8 SCC 104] , has held as under:

“8. A three-Judge Bench of this Court has stated in Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan [(1985) 2 SCC 597 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 297 : AIR 1985 SC 969] : (SCC p. 600, para 5)

“5. Relevant considerations governing the court's decision in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 are materially different from those when an application for bail by a person who is arrested in the course