1. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner/A.4 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.112 of 2025 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Dhoolpet. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 8 (c) r/w.Section 20(b) (ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

2. The facts of the case are that on 17.12.2025 at 11:00 AM, the P&ESI and staff of SHO Dhoolpet on reliable information conducted raid at H.No.13-1-877/6, Dilawargunj, Mangalhat, Dhoolpet. During the raid, they detected illegal possession and sale of dry ganja and seized 1.220 kgs of dry ganja. They arrested A.1 to A.3. Hence a complaint was registered against the accused for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri Apurva M. Gokhale, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent - State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner herein is implicated in this case basing on the confession statement of A.1 to A.3 which is not admissible. No contraband is seized from the possession of petitioner, in fact petitioner is not present at the time of alleged raid. No personal search was conducted on the petitioner and the alleged contraband is intermediate quantity. Petitioner is a student and except that petitioner herein is a daughter of A.1 and seizing her phone no specific allegations are made against her. Hence, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed bail contending that the petitioner herein is actively involved in this crime and investigation is still pending. Hence, petitioner is not entitled for bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.

6. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and material on record, it is seen that the accused in this case are involved in the business of ganja and basing on the confession statement of A.1 to A.3 the petitioner is also shown as accused. Petitioner herein is the daughter of A.1 and A.2 and she used to purchase ganja from A.5 and selling the same to their customers.

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 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, grant of pre-arrest protection would seriously hamper the process of investigation. The settled position of law is that anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of routine or on mere assertion of innocence, particularly when the investigation is at a nascent stage and the role of petitioner requires thorough examination. In such circumstances, the Court may rightly decline to extend the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail, leaving it open to the accused to surrender before the jurisdictional Court and seek regular bail, which shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. As such, petitioner is not entitled for bail and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.