IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Anticipatory Bail – Power to grant pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised sparingly – Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted in a routine manner.
(2) Confession of co-accused – Disclosure statement of co-accused can be taken into consideration for providing lead in investigation and even during trial it is admissible under Section 30 of Evidence Act, 1872.

ORDER

The Criminal Petition n filed, under Section 482 of the Bharatiiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ((for short, ‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail, by petitioner/A6 in Cr.No.51/20025 of Tadepalligudem Town Police Station, West Godavari District registered d for the offence punishable u/Section 8(c)c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic D Drugs And Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’).

2. The Prosecution’s ca case, in brief, is that on 09.02.2025, at approximately 3:00 PM, A1 and A2, both of whom were addicted to Ganja, decided to engage in the illegal trade of Ganja. They contacted A6, who was aware that Ganja was available at a low price on the Andhra-Orissa border in the Visakhapatnam agency area. A6 provided A1 and A2 with Rs.36,000/- and instructed them to procure 12 kilograms of Ganja with the intention of selling it at a higher price. A1 and A2 went to the mentioned location, purchased the 12 kilograms of Ganja, and subsequently received instructions from A6 through Instagram. A6 directed them to deliver 2 kilograms of Ganja each to A3, A4, and A5 at the Railway Station goods shed road, 1 kilogram for both A1 and A2, and 4 kilograms to himself (A6). However, during the execution of these instructions, the police apprehended A1, A2, A3, A4, and A5. They seized a total of 13.288 kilograms of Ganja, under the cover of mediator’s report. A6, however, managed to abscond and evade arrest.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that only on the confession of other accused, the petitioner/A6 is arrayed as A6 in the present crime and there is no proof with regard to the payment of Rs.36,000/-and the petitioner has no criminal background except the present false case. He also submits that the quantity of Ganja seized from A1 to A5 is 13.288 KGs, which falls under the definition of non-commercial quantity and prays to allow the criminal petition.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed to grant bail to the petitioner on the ground that he had engaged A1 and A2 to sell 12 kgs of ganja, of which, he retained 4 kgs.

5. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions, which are on par with the contentions presented in the petition and the report.

6. 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 of investigation as also by a person who is convicted and his appeal is pending before the higher court and bail is sought during the pendency of the appeal.”

9. Similar observations have been made by us in a recent judgment in State v. Anil Sharma [(1997) 7 SCC 187] : (SCC pp. 189-90, para 8)

“The consideration which should weigh with the Court while dealing with a request for anticipatory bail need not be the same as for an application to release on bail after arrest.”

xxxx xxxx xxxx

12. We are strongly of the opinion that this is not a case for exercising the discretion under Section 438 in favour of granting anticipatory bail to the respondents. It is disquieting that implications of arming the respondents, when they are pitted against this sort of allegations involving well-orchestrated conspiracy, with a pre-arrest bail order, though subject to some