Anticipatory bail should not be granted in NDPS cases as a matter of routine due to the serious nature of the offences and potential hindrance to investigations.

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’) seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.4 in Crime No.32 of 2025 on the file of Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.04.2025 at 12:15 PM, based on reliable information regarding ganja transportation on a Honda Scooty Registration No. TS 13 EY 0344, the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, along with staff and panchas, conducted a route watch near Rani Avanti Bai Statue, Amlapur, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad, meanwhile, one person arrived on the said Scooty carrying a bag. Upon being stopped and questioned, he identified himself as Thakur Akash Singh – accused No.1 and with his consent, the vehicle was searched and a plastic bag containing 8 brown tape-wrapped bundles of dry ganja was found. Meanwhile, two individuals on another Scooty fled the scene, abandoning their vehicle, which contained 2 more similar bundles. A total of 10 bundles weighing approximately 25.230 kg. of dry ganja was seized under a cover of panchanama. During interrogation, accused No.1 revealed the involvement of several other accused and also confessed about selling of ganja sachets with his mother at Rs.500 each. Basing on the same, the present complaint was lodged.

3. Heard Mr.Umesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has not committed alleged offences and she was falsely implicated in the said crime solely basing upon the confession statement of the other accused and the same is not permissible under law, especially as per the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 23(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). He further submitted that the alleged contraband was seized from the possession of accused No.1 and the petitioner was implicated as an accused solely on the ground that she is the mother of accused No.1. The allegation made against the petitioner is that she helped accused No.1 in committing the said offence. The police have not followed the mandatory procedure prescribed under the provisions of the NDPS Act while conducting search, recording of panchanama and seizure. He also submitted that in the F.I.R., the police mentioned that the seized contraband was 1.522 kg. of dry ganja, whereas in the remand case diary, they mentioned that the total contraband seized in the present crime was 25.230 kg. in the absence of any material.

5. He further submitted that accused Nos.1 and 3 in the present crime were arrested on 16.04.2025 and 30.04.2025 and this Court was granted bail vide Crl.P.Nos.7811 of 2025 and 6641 of 2025 on 02.07.2025 and 18.06.2025 respectively. The petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents and she is suffering with health problems. The petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and also abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court.

Hence, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner has committed grave offence. The police seized the contraband i.e., 25.230 kg. of dry ganja, which is commercial quantity. The petitioner has been absconding since the date of registration of crime