1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2/Accused No.3 and 4 on bail in Crime No.72 of 2026 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Rajamahendravaram-North, East Godavarai District, registered against the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2/Accused No.3 and 4 herein for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with 22(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 02.06.2026, acting on credible information, the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Rajamahendravaram North, intercepted a Chevrolet car bearing No.KL-55-J-5631 and, in the presence of mediators, seized 20 kgs of dry ganja concealed in gunny bags. The occupants Accused Nos.3 and A4 were arrested and confessed that they were transporting the contraband from Tuni to Chennai under the instructions of Accused Nos.1 and 2 for monetary consideration. In the operation, the Excise officials also seized two mobile phones, the car used for transportation, and cash of Rs.1,500/- allegedly connected with the offence. Based on the investigation and the confessional statements, Accused Nos.1 and 2 were implicated as the suppliers and organisers of the illegal transportation.

3. Smt. Surakasula Satyaveni, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners,submits that the Petitionersare innocent, have been falsely implicated, and that no contraband was recovered from their conscious possession. They submit that the alleged 20 Kgs was weighed without separating the leaves and seeds, and therefore cannot be treated as commercial quantity under ‘the NDPS Act’. They further contend that the alleged confessional statements are inadmissible in law and that there is no independent material connecting them with the offence. The petitioners also submit that they are merely alleged carriers, have no criminal antecedents, and have been in judicial custody since 02.06.2026, while the charge sheet is yet to be filed. Accordingly, they seek regular bail, contending that the embargo under Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act.,’ is not attracted.

4. Per contra, Mr.A. Sai Rohit, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioners, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the Petitioners are released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that they may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.

5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.

6. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is:

                  “Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?”

7. As seen from the record, the allegations against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 are that they were indulged in possession and transportation of 10 Kgs of ganja in ganni bags each. The total contraband involved in this case is 20 Kgs. Undoubtedly is a commercial quantity. On perusal of the entire record, it is clear that the Petitioners had entertained the common intention in possession and transportation of 20 Kgs of ganja. Though the Petitioners were found in possession of 10 Kgs of ganja each in gunni bags.

8. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied on the judgment of the this Court in Patnala Kalyanam v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2017(1) ALT (Crl.) 214 (A.P)), wherein it was mentioned that 20 Kgs of ganja does not come under the category of commercial quantity at paragraph No.4 it is held as under:

                  “4. The learned counsel submits that as per the schedule by the Official Gazette of the Central Government, 20 Kgs is the commercial one. However, as per the provisions, mentioned above, for the purpose of commercial quantity, the quantity should be greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government. Thus, 20 Kgs, does not come in the commercial quantity. Morevoer, 10 packets each carrying 2 Kgs ganja recovered from the petitioner is with packets. Thus it is otherwise below than 20 Kgs each.

9. Another judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners in Makireddy Ramakrishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Crl.P.No.8792 of 2023 dated 17.11.2023), it is held that 20Kgs of dry ganja in 10 packets considered below commercial quantity, wherein at paragraph Nos.9 & 10 it is held that:

                  “9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that even according to the case of the prosecution, the contraband alleged to be seized is not of commercial quantity. In support of the said contention, the petitioner‟s counsel placed reliance on Section 2(viia) of the NDPS Act which reads as follows:

                  (viia) “Commercial quantity”, in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means any quantity greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette.”

                  He also placed reliance on the notification specifying small quantity and commercial quantity.

                  A perusal of the above definition of commercial quantity would show that in relation to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, any quantity which is greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the official gazette would fall within the definition of commercial quantity. The relevant portion of the chart/table which enumerates various narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and also specifies the quantity on account of which either the drug would be less than small quantity or between small quantity and commercial quantity or commercial quantity, is reproduced herein below:

                  Notification specifying small quantity and Commercial Quantity

                  In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (vii-a) and (xxiii-a) of Section 2 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) and in supersession of Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue Notification S.O. 527(E) dated 16th July, 1996, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby specifies the quantity mentioned in columns 5 and 6 of the Table below, in relation to the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance mentioned in the corresponding entry in columns 2 to 4 of the said Table, as the small quantity and commercial quantity respectively for the purposes of the said clauses of that Section.

                  

                  10. A conjoint reading of Section 2(viia) of „the NDPS Act.,‟ and the table would show that the quantity more than 20kgs of Ganja would be considered to be commercial quantity. In view of the same, this Court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners and it is not disputed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also. In support of the said contention, the Petitioners also placed reliance on the order passed in Crl.P.No.15578 of 2016 of the Composite High Court in between Patnala Kalyanam vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein also it is observed that 20kgs does not come under commercial quantity.”

10. However, in the instant case, the petitioners were arrested on 02.06.2026. They have been in the judicial custody for the past 63 days only. The quantity of Ganja allegedly seized from the possession of the accused is 20 Kgs, which is non-commercial quantity. Since the Petitioners have permanent abode in Sullurupeta Mandal, Nellore District.

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2/Accused Nos.3 and 4, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2/Accused Nos.3 and 4 on bail with some stringent conditions.

12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following stringent conditions:

                  i. The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2/Accused Nos.3 and 4 shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

                  ii. The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2/Accused Nos.3 and 4 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till filing of the charge sheet.

                  iii. The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2/Accused Nos.3 and 4 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the learned Trial Court concerned.

                  iv. The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2/Accused Nos.3 and 4 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future.

                  v. The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2/Accused Nos.3 and 4 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court.

                  vi. The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2/Accused Nos.3 and 4 shall surrender their passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.