COMMON ORDER

1. These Criminal Petitions are filed praying this Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail who are arrayed as accused Nos.3 to 7, respectively, in Crime No.DRI/HZU/48A/ENQ-01 (INT-01)/2026 before the Department of Revenue Intelligence, Hyderabad Zonal Unit, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 2(xiv), 2(iii), 2(vii-a), 2(viii-b), 8, 20, 23, 27-A, 28, 29 and 2(viii-a) of the NDPS Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that basing on specific intelligence, officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted accused Nos.3 to 7 at RGIA, Hyderabad, on 30.01.2026, upon arrival from Bangkok. Accused Nos.4 to 7 were found carrying trolley bags containing 27.15 kgs of ganja concealed in 40 vacuum-sealed packets, while accused No.3 was present along with others to receive the contraband. The prosecution alleges that all the accused acted in concert as part of an organized international drug trafficking syndicate.

3. Heard Sri C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Crl.P.No.5290 of 2026, Sri Md. Fasiuddin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Crl.P.Nos.5587, 5996 and 6047 of 2026 as well as Sri Domenic Fernandes, learned Standing Counsel for Central Excise Customs and Service Tax Department and DRI appearing on behalf of the respondent – State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and falsely implicated, and that individual recoveries, if any, do not constitute commercial quantity and that there is no independent evidence to establish conspiracy or prior meeting of minds among the accused. The statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are argued to be inadmissible, and there is non-compliance with Section 52-A procedure relating to sampling and inventory. They further submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents and are willing to comply with any conditions imposed by the Court. Therefore, they prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioners by allowing these Criminal Petitions.

5. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioners acted as part of a coordinated syndicate, as evident from common travel arrangements, unified PNR, identical packaging of contraband, and digital evidence such as WhatsApp communications. He further submitted that the total seized quantity of 27.15 kgs must be treated as a single consignment, constituting commercial quantity, thereby attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. He asserted that strict compliance with statutory procedures and contends that there is strong prima facie material establishing conspiracy and conscious possession, and that the petitioners do not satisfy the twin conditions for grant of bail. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petitions.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both sides and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the prosecution case, at this stage, prima facie discloses the involvement of the petitioners in an organized act of illicit trafficking of narcotic substances. The specific allegation against the petitioners is that they were found travelling together on a common itinerary and were in possession of contraband ganja concealed in a systematic and identical manner, thereby indicating concerted action and a pre-arranged plan. The material placed on record, including the recovery of 27.15 kgs of ganja from accused Nos.4 to 7 and the presence of accused No.3 to receive the same, coupled with the digital communication relied upon by the prosecution, prima facie suggests a nexus among the accused and their involvement in a coordinated operation.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the quantity recovered from each accused individually does not constitute commercial quantity cannot be accepted at this stage, inasmuch as the circumstances indicate that