ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.4, seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. No. 323 of 2024 of Bhanoor Police Station, Sangareddy District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “the NDPS Act”).

2.

Heard Sri Soma Ravi Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-

State.

3. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 23.10.2024 at 12-00 hours when accused No.1 was proceeding to Maniyarpally Village of Kohir Mandal in his Brezza car bearing No. MH 46 BA 1706 along with 50 kgs of ganja, police caught hold him and on enquiry, accused No.1 revealed that he is taking the said ganja to hand over the same to accused No.4.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in this crime only basing on the confession made by the other accused. He further submitted that the 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act are not applicable to the petitioner and the petitioner is not having criminal antecedents. The petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and he will abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail petition and submitted that the petitioner has committed a grave offence and the police seized 50 kgs of ganja, which is commercial quantity as per the provisions of the NDPS Act. Moreover, the investigation is under progress and therefore, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, there is every chance to influence the witnesses and to interfere with the investigation.

Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the police seized the contraband i.e., 50 kgs of dry ganja, which is commercial quantity. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the investigation is under progress.

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. That being so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that anticipatory bail should not be granted in NDPS cases as a matter of routine. In the case of Tarabai vs State of Maharashtra, [(1983) 2 SCC 68], the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the 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 vs 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.

9. In 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.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO Date: 11.04.2025 pgp