In NDPS cases involving commercial quantities, coordinated travel (such as a common PNR) and similar concealment methods provide prima facie evidence of conspiracy, thereby attracting the stringent bail restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

COMMON ORDER

These Criminal Petitions are filed praying this Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in F.No.DRI/HZU/48A/ENQ-04(INT-04/2026) of DRI, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections8c, 20, 23, 28 and 29 of NDPS Act .

2. The brief facts of the case are that accused Nos.1 and 2 are implicated in a case registered under Sections 8(c), 20, 23, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act , pursuant to interception by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad on 29/30.03.2026 after their arrival from Bangkok on the same flight and under a common PNR. Acting on specific intelligence, officials conducted a search of their checked-in baggage in the presence of panch witnesses and recovered 21 packets containing ganja weighing about 25.45 kgs, which is a commercial quantity. The substance tested positive using a drug detection kit and was seized under a panchanama. Both accused were arrested, produced before the Magistrate, and remanded to judicial custody.

3. Heard Sri Jarupula Raju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated, and that mere recovery from baggage does not establish conscious possession, which must be strictly proved during trial and that the alleged contraband has been mechanically attributed to both accused without establishing individual possession or specific roles. He further argued that procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act regarding search, seizure, sampling and documentation require strict compliance, and any deviation would vitiate the prosecution case. The accused have no criminal antecedents, are not habitual offenders, and continued detention is unnecessary as the contraband has already been seized. It is submitted that the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act are not strictly attracted in the absence of clear individual attribution, and both accused are entitled to bail on the ground of personal liberty and willingness to cooperate with the investigation. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioners by allowing these Criminal Petitions.

5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent opposes the bail application, contending that both Accused Nos.1 and 2 were travelling together under a common PNR, which clearly establishes a coordinated plan and criminal conspiracy to smuggle contraband into India and that the recovery of 25.45 kgs of ganja, which is a commercial quantity, from their checked-in baggage, along with uniform packaging and concealment techniques, demonstrates that the contraband forms part of a single consignment handled jointly by both accused. The seizure was effected in accordance with law under a duly drawn panchanama, supported by chemical test results and voluntary statements, thereby establishing conscious possession and involvement. He contended that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act squarely apply, and unless the Court is satisfied that the accused are not guilty, bail cannot be granted. The investigation is still in progress to trace the larger network, and release of the accused at this stage may result in tampering with evidence or absconding. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss these Criminal Petitions.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both