In NDPS Act cases, anticipatory bail may be denied if a prima facie link to the offence is established via co-accused statements, as custodial interrogation is essential to uncover the illegal network and ensure an effective investigation.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Narik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.3 in Crime No.72 of 2026 before the Bellampalli Town Police Station, Ramagundam District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) and 27 of NDPS Act .

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.04.2026 at about 19:40 hours, the police intercepted accused Nos.1 and 2 near Panchamukhi Hanuman Statue, NH-363, Bellampalli, and allegedly found them in possession of 405 grams of dry ganja, which they had purchased from Ballarsha, Maharashtra. It is alleged that the said contraband was intended to be sold to Accused No.3 who was allegedly engaged in selling ganja at higher rates in the local area.

3. Heard Sri Rudresh Deshpande, 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 present case and that there are no specific allegations or material to establish the direct involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence. He further submitted that the alleged recovery of 405 grams of ganja was effected only from Accused Nos.1 and 2 and not from the petitioner, and therefore no case of conscious possession is made out against her. He contended that the quantity involved is below commercial quantity and the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, thereby entitling the petitioner to the benefit of notice under Section 35(3) of the BNS, as laid down in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar. It is also contended that Accused Nos.1 and 2 have already been granted anticipatory bail, and the implication of the petitioner is solely based on their statements, which are not sufficient to establish her involvement. 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 anticipatory bail application, contending that the petitioner is involved in the illegal sale of ganja and that Accused Nos.1 and 2 procured the contraband specifically for supplying it to the petitioner for resale. He further submitted that the investigation is at a crucial stage and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary to unearth the source and network involved in the illegal trade. Therefore, at this stage, granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner 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 solely basing on the confession made by co-accused in whose possession contraband was seized and that petitioner is no way concerned with the alleged offence punishable under NDPS Act , as no contraband was seized from her possession, whereas, it is the specific stand of learned Additional Public Prosecutor that petitioner is actively involved with other accused in her 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