Common Order:

1. These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking the relief of anticipatory bail. 2. Crl.P. No. 11572 of 2026 is filed by the petitioner/Accused No. 5 and Crl.P. No. 11605 of 2026 is filed by the petitioner/Accused No. 6 in C.O.R. No. 43 of 2026 registered by the Prohibition & Excise Station, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B), 27 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “the NDPS Act”).

3. As these Criminal Petitions arise out of the same crime and have been filed by the respective petitioners seeking substantially identical reliefs, involving common questions of fact and law, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

4. Heard Mr. T.G. Suresh Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State in both the matters.

5. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27.05.2026, the officials of Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Dhoolpet, acting upon credible information, conducted a raid at House No.13-1-1009, Balramgally, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad. During the course of the raid, they allegedly seized 1.210 kilograms of dry ganja, packed in a black polythene cover, from the possession of Accused No.1 under the cover of a panchanama. Based on the said seizure, the present COR was registered and Accused No.1 was arrested. During the course of investigation, Accused Nos.1 and 4 are stated to have made disclosure statements alleging that the petitioners/Accused Nos.5 and 6 used to transport and deliver ganja to Accused No.1 on behalf of Accused No.4. On the strength of the said disclosure statements, the prosecution alleges that the petitioners acted as couriers in the supply and transportation of the contraband.

6.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present crime. It is contended that the petitioners were neither present at the scene of offence nor was any contraband recovered either from their possession or from their respective residences. Their implication, according to the learned counsel, rests solely upon the alleged confession or disclosure statements of the co-accused, which, by themselves, have only limited evidentiary value in law. It is further submitted that neither the COR nor the Remand Case Diary attributes any specific overt act or distinct role to the petitioners, so as to establish their involvement in the alleged commission of the offence.

               6.2. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents and are permanent residents of the locality, and therefore, there is no likelihood either of their absconding or of tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is further submitted that the investigation has substantially progressed, the material witnesses have already been examined, and only the filing of the charge sheet remains. Consequently, according to the learned counsel, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is no longer necessary. It is also contended that the mandatory provisions governing search and seizure under the NDPS Act have not been duly complied with during the course of investigation. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the Investigating Officer at every stage of the investigation and undertake to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel prays that the petitioners be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

7.1. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, contending that the material collected during the course of investigation prima facie discloses the active involvement of the petitioners in the commission of offences punishable under the NDPS Act. It is submitted that, acting upon credible information, the complainant conducted a raid at the premises of Accused No.1, during which an intermediary quantity of ganja was seized. During the course of investigation, it was allegedly revealed that the petitioners acted as couriers by transporting and delivering the contraband to Accused No.1 on behalf of Accused No.4, who is alleged to be the principal supplier. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the petitioners have been absconding and evading the process of law since the registration of the crime.

               7.2. It is further contended that the investigation is still in progress and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is indispensable for ascertaining the source of procurement of the contraband, identifying other persons involved in the alleged illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, and completing the investigation in an effective and comprehensive manner. It is argued that, if anticipatory bail is granted at this stage, the petitioners may evade the investigation and hamper its fair and effective progress. Having regard to the gravity and seriousness of the allegations and the nature of the offence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays that the present applications for anticipatory bail be dismissed.

8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

9. The material placed on record discloses that, although no contraband was recovered from the possession of the petitioners, the investigation attributes to them the specific role of transporting and delivering the seized ganja to Accused No.1. The statements recorded during the course of investigation prima facie indicate the alleged involvement of the petitioners in the supply chain of the contraband. The correctness, truthfulness, or otherwise of those allegations are matters that fall within the domain of investigation and, ultimately, trial. At this stage, this Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidentiary value or admissibility of the material collected by the Investigating Agency. It is true that the quantity of contraband allegedly seized is an intermediate quantity and, therefore, the statutory embargo contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, is not attracted. Nevertheless, even in cases where the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are inapplicable, the grant of anticipatory bail continues to remain an extraordinary discretionary relief, to be exercised upon due consideration of the nature and gravity of the accusations, the specific role attributed to the accused, the stage of investigation, and the necessity for custodial interrogation.

10. The specific allegation against the petitioners is that they acted as couriers in the transportation and supply of the contraband to Accused No.1 on behalf of Accused No.4. It is also not in dispute that neither of the petitioners has, thus far, subjected himself to the process of investigation. The prosecution has specifically asserted that the petitioners have been absconding since the registration of the crime and that their custodial interrogation is necessary for tracing the source of the contraband, identifying the remaining members of the alleged narcotics network, and collecting further incriminating material relevant to the investigation. Having regard to the stage of investigation and the nature of the allegations, this Court finds prima facie substance in the said contention.

11. In State Rep. by the C.B.I. v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more effective than questioning a person protected by an order of anticipatory bail and observed that, where such interrogation is necessary, the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should not ordinarily be granted. Likewise, in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that the requirement of custodial interrogation and the larger interests of a fair, effective, and unhindered investigation constitute relevant considerations while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the confession of a co-accused does not constitute substantive evidence. There can be no quarrel with the legal proposition. However, this Court is of the considered view that, at the stage of investigation, the Investigating Agency is entitled to collect all relevant material and pursue every legitimate lead for the purpose of an effective investigation. The admissibility, reliability, and evidentiary value of the material so collected are matters to be adjudicated during the course of trial. At this stage, the limited enquiry before this Court is whether the facts and circumstances of the case warrant custodial interrogation of the petitioners. On an overall consideration of the material placed, this Court is satisfied that such custodial interrogation cannot, at this stage, be dispensed with.

13. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioners in the alleged transportation and supply of the contraband, the fact that the investigation is still in progress, the necessity for custodial interrogation, and the likelihood of the ongoing investigation being prejudiced if the petitioners are granted the protection of anticipatory bail at this stage, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners.

14. Consequently, the Criminal Petitions are liable to be dismissed and are, accordingly, dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein are confined exclusively to the adjudication of the present applications for anticipatory bail and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The Investigating Agency shall proceed with the investigation independently and uninfluenced by any observations contained in this order.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.