THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10593 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.950 of 2025 of Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.05.2025 at about 16:10 hours, on receipt of credible information regarding illegal possession and sale of ganja, the Sub- Inspector of Police, Gachibowli Police Station, proceeded to a place near Anganwadi School, located at Gate No.5, opposite Amazon Company in Nanakramguda, and apprehended accused No.1 in the aforesaid crime and seized 1.120 kgs of ganja from him. Based on his confession, the aforesaid crime was registered against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 and other accused for the aforesaid offence.

3. Heard Sri M.Amarnath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are no way concerned with the seizure of contraband and even according to the complaint, the contraband was seized from accused No.1 and based on his confession only, the petitioners were falsely implicated in the present crime and the same is not permissible under law. He further submits that as the alleged contraband was seized from accused No.1, the ingredients of the provisions of the NDPS Act are not attracted against the petitioners and even according to the prosecution, the alleged contraband involved in the crime is 1.120 kgs of ganja, which is an intermediate quantity. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are ready to cooperate with the investigation and abide by the conditions as may be imposed by this Court and prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners has committed grave offence under the provisions of the NDPS Act and the police have seized 1.120 kgs of ganja from accused No.1 and the investigation is under progress and at this stage, if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, he will indulge in similar offences and as such, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

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 Bengal1 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 b