In cases under the NDPS Act, anticipatory bail may be denied if investigation materials, such as statements of co-accused, establish a prima facie link to the offence, as custodial interrogation is often necessary for a fair and 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.1 in Crime No.486 of 2025 before the Hanamkonda Police Station, Warangal District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 17(b) and 29 of NDPS Act .

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.09.2025, upon receiving credible information that some individuals were in illegally possession of narcotic substances, the police immediately conducted a raid, apprehended accused Nos.2 and 3, and recovered 76 grams of opium(Afeem) from their possession. Their statements were recorded wherein they stated that the alleged contraband was purchased from accused No.1. Consequently, a crime was registered against all the accused for the aforesaid offences.

3. Heard Sri G. Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachandra 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 present case, and that there are no specific allegations or any substantial material to establish his involvement in the alleged offence. He further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation at all stages and that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and that the investigation is substantially completed. 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 grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that the allegations against the petitioner disclosed his involvement in the crime. He further submitted that the investigation is at a crucial stage, the charge sheet was yet to be filed, and if anticipatory bail was granted, there was every likelihood of the petitioner influencing witnesses or hampering further investigation. 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 Additional Public Prosecutor that petitioner is actively involved with other accused in their illegal activities.

7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that in cases arising under the NDPS Act , the Court is required to exercise great caution while considering a prayer for anticipatory bail, keeping in view the nature of allegations, gravity of the offence, and the necessity of custodial interrogation for a fair and effective investigation. The Hon’ble High Court, as affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Chander v. State of Haryana , SLP (Crl.) No. 9540 of 2025, has observed that where the investigation materials disclose a prima facie link of the accused with the alleged offence, such as his involvement being reflected from statements of co-accused, electronic communication, or financial transactions, the grant of pre-arrest protection would seriously hamper the process of investi