ORDER:

The present Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.2 in COR.No.270 of 2024 before the Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(b) of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short ‘NDPS’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on December 12, 2024, Excise P.S. Dhoolpet officials, acting on credible information, apprehended A1/Angoori Bai (also known as Aruna Bai) near Ganesh Ghat, Dhoolpet, and discovered 1.53 kilograms of dry ganja in her handbag. During questioning, A1 revealed that she was involved in the ganja trade and had previously supplied ganja to several individuals, including the petitioner. She further stated that the seized ganja belonged to the petitioner, who had given it to her for sale at Attapur, leading to the registration of COR No.270/2024 and the arrest of AngooriBai as A-1, with the petitioner implicated as A-2. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri CH Ravinder, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent – State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is being intentionally harassed by the police, who have previously implicated her in false criminal cases, including a PD case that was recently quashed by this Court. He contended that she has been falsely implicated in the current case, a NDPS case, solely based on a confessional statement obtained by force, which is a weak piece of evidence. He lamented that implication of petitioner is an abuse and misuse of law, violating her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the quantum of recovery of contraband constitutes commercial quantity and that the same was in possession of petitioner and other accused. He further contended that the petitioner/A2 is a habitual offender with 13 pending NDPS cases, and if enlarged on anticipatory bail, she will likely resume selling ganja, utilizing juvenile henchmen and family members, and that she may also intimidate witnesses, tamper with evidence, and continue committing offences, thereby undermining the investigation and judicial process.

Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the primary contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that this anticipatory bail may be allowed as the seized contraband was only 1.53kgs of ganja which can be considered as small quantity. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, [(2019) 16 SCC 547] whereunder, the proceedings against the accused thereof were quashed observing that ‘there is no recovery from the residence of the appellant of the counterfeit notes and that there is no other material on the basis of which even a strong suspicion could be aroused . The seized contraband is commercial quantity’. However, it is pertinent to mention that the present case is for the offences punishable under NDPS Act. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner further relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Singh Vs. State of Haryana, [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1235], whereunder, anticipatory bail was granted on seizure of 1.75 kgs observing that petitioner was not present at the spot but was named by the co accused, whereas, in the present case, the petitioner is implicated in 12 other cases of simila