The court ruled that possession of narcotics with involvement in conspiracy makes bail untenable under the NDPS Act.

ORDER

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS ’) by the petitioner/Accused No.1 for granting of bail in connection with Crime No.30 of 2025 of Rolugunta Police Station, Anakapalli District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(C), 25 r/w 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.04.2025 at around 10:00 hours, based on credible information regarding ganja transportation, the SI of Police, Rolugunta, along with staff and two mediators, conducted vehicle checking near Kanchugummala Village Junction, Rolugunta Mandal. During the check, four individuals arrived on two bikes carrying white PVC bags. Upon noticing the police, they attempted to flee but were apprehended. On interrogation before the mediators, the accused Nos.1 to 4 were identified. Accused No.1 confessed to purchasing 26 KGs of ganja from Accused No.2 and enlisted Accused Nos.3 and 4 to help transport it, offering them 1 KG each for personal use. Police seized 26 KGs of ganja valued at Rs.1,30,000, two motorcycles, and four mobile phones from the accused under cover of a mediators' report. The case was reported the same day at 12:30 hours. Since then, the petitioner/accused No.1 has been in judicial custody.

3. Sri. Aprabolu Sai Naveen, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and, he is ready to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

6. As seen from the record, the petitioner/accused No.1 procured the contraband about 26 KGS of Ganja from accused No.3. The petitioner acted as a mediator. Accused Nos.3 and 4 were the ultimate receivers. Indent was ordered, 26 KGs of Ganja was weighed. Section 29 of the NDPS Act would squarely applicable to the case at hand. on perusal of the entire record, accused Nos.3 and 4 are the customers of the accused No.1. Of course, there is no reference about inclusion of Section 29 of the NDPS Act at Column No.1 of the FIR. Whether the petitioner entertained a culpable mental state is a matter of trial. The presumption arising from the possession of illicit articles under Section 54 of the NDPS Act is also an issue to be considered during the trial. Moreover, the inventory in this case has already been prepared.

7. The petitioner was arrested on 21.04.2025 and ever since they have been in judicial custody. Learned counsel further relied on a decision of this Court in Shafik Khan v. State of Andhra Pradesh , [1Crl.P.No.4326of2019dated27.08.2019] at Para No.6, the seized ganja was apportioned in between the accused and the petitioners were enlarged on bail as they were not allegedly carrying commer