THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.5869 of 2025

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner/accused No.5, seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.81 of 2024 of Damera Police Station, Warangal District registered for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1989 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

2. Heard Sri M.Rathan Sing, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents.

3. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 08.06.2024, K.Ashok, Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Damera, received reliable information that three persons were transporting banned dry ganja from Toolugonda to Nasik, Maharashtra, in a KIA Sonet car, Ashok and his team, along with panchas and the clues team, intercepted the vehicle near Disney Land School, Oglipor village, and found 96 packets of dry ganja weighing 190.860 kg, valued at Rs.47,71,500/-. The accused, Yogesh Datt Gaikwad, Sominath Ramdas Khalate, and Gajji Sahadeva Raju, confessed that they purchased the ganja from Paandu near Thoolugonda and transporting it to Nasik for sale. The seized material, including the car, mobile phones, and cash, was handed over to the Malkana in- charge, and the accused were handed over to the Station House Officer, Damera for further action. Basing on the said complaint, the present crime was registered for the aforesaid offences.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in this case only basing upon the confessional statement given by the accused No.1 and the alleged contraband was seized from the other accused. Hence the ingredients Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act are not attracted to the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner is suffering with jaundice and he is not having any 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, prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. In support of his contention, he relied upon the orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Kunal Dattu Kadu vs. Union of India in Anticipatory Bail Application No.2173 of 2022, dated 29.08.2022.

6. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has committed a grave offence punishable under the provisions of NDPS Act and the police seized 96 packets of dry ganja weighing 190.860 kg valued at Rs.47,71,500/- from the petitioner and other accused. Moreover, the investigation is not yet completed. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to grant anticipatory bail.

7. Having regard to the rival submissions made by the respective parties and on perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the police seized 190.860 kgs of ganja, which is more than the commercial quantity.

8. 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.

9. 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 bai