In NDPS cases involving commercial quantities, bail cannot be granted unless the court records a finding that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and will not commit similar offences, as mandated by Section 37.

The Court made the following:

ORDER:-

The 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 Petitioner/Accused No.8 on bail in Crime.No.156 of 2025 of Kirlampudi Police Station, Kakinada District, registered against the Petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State. Perused the record.

The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner and other accused were transporting 351.180 kgs of ganja on 23.09.2025 and the police arrested the accused and seized the said contraband.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent, he did not commit the offence, he was falsely implicated in this case, he never indulged in transportation of contraband, the police did not follow mandatory provisions of NDPS Act, investigation in this case is completed except receipt of FSL report and filing of charge sheet and no ganja is seized from his possession, he has fixed abode and ready to furnish surety and ready to abide by any condition imposed by the Court.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor while opposing bail contended that, investigation is under progress. The seized contraband in the case is 383.82 kgs, which is huge commercial quantity. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, it is very difficult to secure his presence and also the statutory period is not over and urged to dismiss the criminal petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Mohit Aggarwal¹(2022) 18 Supreme Court Cases 374, 2026:APHC:20176 in paragraph No.16 which is usefully extracted hereunder:

“16. Coming back to the facts of the instant cse, the learned Single Judge of the High Court cannot be faulted for holding that the appellant NCB could not have relied on the confessional statements of the respondent and the other co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act in the light of the law laid down by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of T.N. , (2021) 4 SCC 1: (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 246, wherein as per the majority decision, a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act has been held to be inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. Therefore, the admissions made by the respondent while in custody to the effect that he had illegally traded in narcotic drugs, will have to be kept aside.”

Considering the submissions made and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Mohit Aggarwal , relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not come to the petitioner’s aid. It is evident that the petitioner/Accused No.8 was arrested on the confession of accused No.1. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there is clear bank transaction between the accused No.1 and the petitioner/accused No.8 and the petitioner received sum of Rs.55,000/- from the accused No.1. The ganja involved in this crime is 383.82 kgs. No doubt the seized ganja is a huge commercial quantity. Once the commercial quantity is involved, Section 37 of NDPS Act comes into play. The conditions mentioned under Section 37(b)(ii) of NDPS Act are to be satisfied for grant of bail to the accused in the typical cases. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail. This Court is also of the view that there is no material to presume that the petitioner has not c