ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.6 on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.346 of 2024 of Thangallapalli Police Station, Rajanna Sircilla District, for the offence punishable under Section 27B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’).

2. Heard Mr. Y. Bala Murali, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offence and he was falsely implicated in the above said crime. The police have not seized any contraband from the possession of the petitioner and they have not followed the procedure as contemplated under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. The petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and also comply with the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court. The petitioner is doing private employment and he is the sole breadwinner to his family and if he is arrested, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Hence, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has involved in grave offence and there are specific allegations against the petitioner. If the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, there is every chance to influence the witnesses and interfere with the investigation. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it is noted that the limited grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case solely basing on the confession made by the co-accused, in whose possession contraband was seized, and that the petitioner is no way concerned with the offence punishable under Section 27B of the NDPS Act, as no contraband was seized from his possession, whereas, it is the specific stand of learned Additional Public Prosecutor that petitioner purchased the 200 grams of ganja and he is actively involved in selling ganja and the same resulted in his implication in this case.

6. 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.

7. That being so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that anticipatory bail should not be granted in NDPS cases as the matter of routine. In the case of Tarabai v. State of Maharashtra, [(1983) 2 SCC 68], the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that grant of anticipatory bail in NDPS cases may hamper the investigation and enable the accused to destroy evidence. Similarly, in the case of Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [(2012) 10 SCC 632], the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that anticipatory bail should not be granted in NDPS cases as a matter of course.

8. In the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements and statutory provisions, and mindful of the fact that the grant of pre- arrest bail at a stage, when the investigation is still in progress, may impede the investigative process and potentially prejudice the case of the prosecution, observes that there are no merits in this criminal petition to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

______________________ J.SREENIVAS RAO, J Date: 12.03.2025 mar