Anticipatory bail in NDPS cases requires cautious judicial discretion to prevent hindrance to ongoing investigations.

ORDER

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/A.3 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.469 of 2024 of Narsampet Police Station, Warangal. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 8 (c) r/w. Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.11.2024 at 02.10 hours, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Narsampet Police station along with his staff while conducting patrolling duty and reached infront of VNR Milk & Milk Products Marketing Office on Warangal road at Narsampet, conducting vehicle check when they stopped a two wheeler, the accused persons who were riding the said bike, on seeing the police, they tried to flee away. Immediately, the police apprehended A.1 and A.3 escaped on seeing them. The police seized dry ganja weighing 1.980 kgs, vehicle bearing No.TS 25 G 6116 and mobile phone from the possession of A.1 and as per the confession statement of A.1, the police went to FCI Colony, Gopalpur, Hanamkonda to the house of A.2 and seized 1 packet of dry ganja weighing 1.900 kgs and 2 packets of dry ganja weighing 1.800 kgs and mobile phone of A.2 and apprehended A.1 and A.2 and seized the property under the cover of panchanama. Basing on the complaint the police registered the case against the accused for the said offences.

3. Heard Sri A. Jagan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 28.11.2024. Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and he is falsely implicated in this case by the police. Petitioner is an IT employee and he is no way connected with this crime and nothing has been seized from the possession of this petitioner. Further, the material part of investigation is completed and the ganja seized in this crime is not commercial quantity. As such, prayed this Court to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail on the ground that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are of serious nature and the quantity seized is a commercial quantity. 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 limited grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was falsely implicated in this case solely on the basis of confession made by the other accused in whose possession contraband was seized and that petitioner is no way concerned with the alleged offences, whereas, it is the specific case of learned Additional Public Prosecutor that petitioner is actively involved in this case.

7. At this stage, it is pertinent to observe that the Courts exercise caution while dealing with anticipatory bail petitions in NDPS cases due to the serious nature of these offences. Granting anticipatory bail in regular manner may hamper the investigation, allow the accused to abscond, and undermine public interest in preventing and controlling these offences.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that anticipatory bail should not be granted in NDPS cases as a matter of routine, as the same may hamper the investigation and enable the accused to destroy evidence. Further, in the case of Anarul SK v. State of West Bengal¹ the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that grant of anticipatory b