Anticipatory bail should not be routinely granted in NDPS cases due to potential interference with investigations and public interest.

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 in COR No.77 of 2025 on the file of Prohibition and Excise Station, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) r/w. 20 (b) (ii) (B) of Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “the NDPS Act”).

2. The case of prosecution in brief is 25.06.2025, the petitioners along with other accused were found in possession of 3 kgs. of dry ganja. Basing the same, the above crime was registered.

3. Heard Ms.Snigdha Katta, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners have not committed alleged offence and they were falsely implicated in the above crime, basing upon the confession statement given by the other accused.

She further submitted that the alleged contraband was seized from the other accused, hence the provisions of the NDPS Act are not attracted against the petitioners. She further submitted that the investigation is under progress and the petitioners are ready to cooperate with the investigation and also ready to abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court and hence, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners have committed a grave offence, and the Police seized the contraband, namely 3 kgs. of ganja. He further submitted that petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 were involved in similar offences, and four cases are pending against each of them. He further submitted that if the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 are granted anticipatory bail at this stage, they may tamper with the evidence and may threaten the witnesses, and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

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 namely 3 kgs of ganja in the present crime. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed on record the written instructions furnished by the Sub-Inspector of the Prohibition and Excise Station, Balanagar, Ranga Reddy District, wherein it reveals that accused No.3 is involved in similar cases i.e., COR No.28 of 2019, COR No.19 of 2020, COR No.30 of 2021 and COR No.71 of 2022 registered under the provisions of NDPS Act. Similarly, accused No.4 also involved in four other crimes namely COR No.174 of 2019, COR Nos.62 and 96 of 2022 and COR No.161 of 2024.

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. 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