Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail for offences involving commercial quantities is restricted unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.

: ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.8 in Crime No.140 of 2025 of Khanapur Police Station, Warangal. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 8(c) r/w.20 (b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 01.09.2025 at about 12:00 hours, while the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Khanapur, was on patrolling duty, he received credible information that some unknown persons were moving suspiciously at the outskirts of Chilukammanagar, near Chilukalagutta, and were involved in illegal activity. He immediately proceeded to the spot along with his staff and noticed four persons with plastic bags who, on seeing the police, attempted to escape. The police apprehended them along with one motorcycle and four white plastic bags. On questioning, the accused disclosed their names as Andala Pandureddy @ Pandu @ Naidu, Gollari Muniraju, Koppu Kotaiah, and Bhukya Saikumar @ Sai. They confessed that the bags contained dry ganja and further revealed that a total of 23 white plastic bags of ganja weighing about 750 kilograms had earlier been dumped at Chilukalagutta on the instructions of absconding accused persons from Odisha. Acting on their confession, the police seized 23 bags of dry ganja weighing about 763.845 kilograms, valued at approximately Rs.3,81,92,250/- under a cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators. The accused stated that they were transporting the ganja on the directions of the absconding accused for the purpose of sale and transport to other states. Hence, crime was registered against the accused for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri Mohd.Muzafferullah Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that no contraband was seized from his possession. It is contended that petitioner has been arrayed as Accused No.8 solely on the basis of the alleged confessional statements of the co-accused and his own alleged confession, and that there is absolutely no independent or cogent evidence to prima facie establish his involvement in the offence. Learned counsel further submits that such confessional statements are inadmissible in law and cannot be relied upon, particularly in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu , (2020) 12 S.C.C.583, wherein it was held that confessions recorded under the NDPS Act are not admissible in evidence. It is also contended that at the stage of consideration of bail, the confession of a co-accused cannot be looked into against another accused, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , 2025 Livelaw (SC) 598 Therefore, when the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments are applied to the present case, it is clear that neither the alleged confession of the petitioner nor that of the co-accused can be relied upon to deny bail. Apart from such inadmissible statements, there is no material on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 27.09.2025. It is also submitted that petitioner has no criminal antecedents and, therefore, prayed this Court to grant bail