THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10862 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.57 of 2025 of Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Dhoolpet.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 03.07.2025 at about 11.55 a.m., the P & ESI and staff of SHO Dhoolpet conducted a raid at the place mentioned in Crime No.2 and detected illegal possession and sale of dry ganja. The contraband was seized under a panchanama, and one woman accused was arrested, while one male accused absconded. The seized material, original case papers, and the arrested woman accused were handed over to the SHO, Dhoolpet. Based on the original papers, a case was registered, and the woman accused was produced before the trial Court for judicial remand.

3. Heard Dr. Vijayalaxmi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated in the case and that the Police relied on a coerced confessional statement from a co-accused. He further submitted that the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a prima facie offence against the petitioner and that the confession of the co-accused is inadmissible as evidence, as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, MANU/SC/0797/2020 Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner is drug peddlers. He further submitted that the investigation is in progress and if the petitioner is released on bail, at this stage, he may tamper

with the evidence and may threaten the witnesses. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed 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 co-accused in whose possession contraband was seized and that petitioner is no way concerned with the offence punishable under Sections 8 (c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, as no contraband was seized from his possession, whereas, it is the specific stand of learned Additional Public Prosecutor that petitioner is actively involved with other accused in his illegal activities.

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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that anticipatory bail should not be granted in NDPS cases as a matter of routine, as the same may hamper the investigation and enable the accused to destroy evidence. Further, in the case of Anarul SK v. State of West Bengal² the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that grant of anticipatory bail in cases involving NDPS is a very serious issue.

9. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion 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, as such, 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.

Miscellane