In NDPS Act cases involving commercial quantities, anticipatory bail is generally declined if prima facie evidence, such as financial transactions or co-accused statements, suggests involvement, as custodial interrogation is deemed essential for an effective investigation.

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.4 in Crime No.44 of 2026 before the Julurpad Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 8c read with 20(b)(ii)(C), 27A, 29 of NDPS Act .

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.03.2026, during vehicle checking near Kommugudem village, the police apprehended Accused Nos.1 to 3 while they were transporting a huge quantity of dry ganja weighing about 105.54 kilograms in two cars. The contraband, valued at approximately Rs.52,77,000/-, was seized under a panchanama. It is alleged that the accused intended to transport the ganja to Shirdi, Maharashtra, for illegal sale, and that other accused persons, including the petitioner (A4), were involved in the offence, though they were absconding at the time of seizure.

3. Heard Sri K. Uday Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachander Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case solely based on the alleged confession statements of co- accused and that the petitioner is a meat shop owner and any financial transactions with A1 were purely related to legitimate business dealings and not connected to any illegal activity. He further submitted that the name of the petitioner and parentage do not even match the details mentioned in the FIR, indicating mistaken identity. The counsel submits that there is no direct material linking the petitioner to the alleged transportation of ganja, no recovery from him, and no criminal antecedents. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application contending that the case involves commercial quantity of ganja and is of a serious nature. He further submitted that the petitioner is part of a larger network engaged in illegal transportation and sale of narcotic substances, and his involvement is revealed during investigation, including through financial transactions and statements of co-accused. Therefore, at this stage, granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners does not arise. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available 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 and that petitioner is no way concerned with the alleged offence punishable under NDPS Act , as no contraband was seized from his possession, whereas, it is the specific stand of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that petitioner is actively involved with other accused in their illegal activities.

7. Further, it is to be noted that the case involves a huge commercial quantity. The discrepancy in the name of the petitioner as reflected in the confessional statement vis-à-vis his actual name, by itself, cannot be considered a valid ground for granting anticipatory bail. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that there are statements indicating financial transactions between the petitioner and the prime accused. Therefore,