1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking the relief of anticipatory bail.
2. The petitioner is arrayed as the accused No.8 in FIR No.68 of 2025 on the file of the Gandhari Police Station, Kamareddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 22(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “NDPS”) and Section 34(a) of the T.S.Excise4 Act.
3. Heard Mr.C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 09.04.2025, acting on reliable information that, some persons who had consumed toddy and subsequently fell unconscious, the complainant, along with his team, proceeded to the toddy shop of accused No.1. Upon reaching the said premises, a search was conducted, during which two boxes containing a total of 24 bottles, measuring 15,600 ml of toddy, were seized. During the course of further investigation, based on the statement of a co-accused, the alleged involvement of the petitioner as the supplier of Alprazolam came to light.
5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that, according to the statement of the co-accused, Alprazolam was allegedly found mixed in the toddy and that there is no material or the toddy was not even sent for chemical examination. How so ever, the allegation is that, said substance was purportedly supplied by the petitioner to accused No.7, who, in turn, allegedly supplied it to the other accused, is without any basis.
5.2. It is further contended that, even according to the prosecution case, the seized toddy was not sent for chemical examination to establish the presence of any narcotic or psychotropic substance therein. Learned counsel further submits that, although the crime has been pending since the year 2025, the petitioner has not been arrested by the police so far. According to the learned counsel, the prosecution case against the petitioner substantially rests upon the statement of accused No.2, which, by itself, has limited evidentiary value, and there is no independent material presently showing either that the toddy was adulterated with Alprazolam or that the petitioner had supplied Alprazolam to the other accused.
5.3. Learned counsel further submits that accused No.6 has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and that the petitioner is similarly situated in material respects. It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and undertakes to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail.
6.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner is the person who allegedly supplied the contraband substance and that he has remained unavailable to the investigating agency thus far. It is further submitted that the allegation relates to the mixing of a narcotic or psychotropic substance with a neutral substance and that, in such circumstances, the entire quantity is required to be taken into consideration for determining whether the quantity falls within the category of small, intermediate or commercial quantity, as applicable under the relevant statutory provisions.
6.2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the investigation into the alleged supply chain is still in progress and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to ascertain the source of the contraband, the manner in which it was supplied, and the role of the persons allegedly involved in the transaction. Having regard to the nature and seriousness of the allegations and the necessity of completing the investigation into the alleged supply network, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail and, accordingly, prays for dismissal of the petition.
7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.
8. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he supplied Alprazolam, a psychotropic substance, which, according to the prosecution, was adulterated or mixed with toddy. At the stage of considering an application for anticipatory bail, this Court is not required to undertake a meticulous examination or a conclusive assessment of the veracity of the prosecution allegations, nor is it expected to conduct a detailed appreciation of the evidence as would be appropriate at the stage of trial. Nevertheless, the Court is required to prima facie assess the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the applicant, the material relied upon by the prosecution, and the necessity, if any, of securing his custodial interrogation.
9. The jurisdiction relating to anticipatory bail is intended to safeguard personal liberty against unjustified or arbitrary arrest. The exercise of this jurisdiction must be guided by the facts and circumstances of each individual case and cannot be reduced to a mechanical or routine exercise. The Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, recognized the importance of protecting personal liberty while simultaneously emphasizing that the power of anticipatory bail has to be exercised judicially and on the basis of the circumstances of the particular case.
10. In determining whether such discretionary relief ought to be granted, the Court is therefore required to strike a proper balance between the individual's right to liberty and the legitimate interests of a fair, effective and unhindered investigation. The nature and gravity of the accusation, the precise role attributed to the accused, his antecedents, the possibility of his influencing witnesses or interfering with the investigation, the likelihood of his absconding or repeating the alleged offence, and the potential impact of his release upon the investigation are among the relevant considerations.
11. Further, the contention regarding custodial interrogation cannot be considered in isolation. In State represented by the CBI v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized the greater efficacy of custodial interrogation in appropriate cases, particularly where the investigating agency requires the accused's presence in custody to obtain information or confront him with material collected during investigation. Likewise, in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, the Supreme Court considered the importance of custodial interrogation in the context of a serious investigation and emphasized that the grant of anticipatory bail must not unnecessarily impede an effective investigation. The decision does not lay down an inflexible rule that custodial interrogation must invariably be ordered in cases involving economic or other serious offences; rather, the requirement must be assessed having regard to the nature of the allegations, the material collected, the role attributed to the accused, and the investigative requirements of the particular case.
12. In the present case, the allegation against the petitioner is not merely of his presence in the vicinity of the alleged transaction or of an incidental association with the other accused. The specific case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was the principal supplier of the contraband, namely Alprazolam allegedly adulterated or mixed with toddy. If established prima facie from the material placed before the Court, such an allegation attributes a substantive and direct role to the petitioner in the alleged supply chain and, consequently, assumes significance while considering the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. The fact that Accused No. 6 has already been granted anticipatory bail does not, by itself, entitle the petitioner to the same relief on the ground of parity. The principle of parity is not one of mathematical equality; it requires the Court to examine whether the role, circumstances and position of the accused seeking bail are comparable to those of the accused who has already been granted such relief. The Supreme Court has specifically held that parity must focus upon the role attributed to the accused and his position in relation to the incident, and cannot be founded merely upon a superficial similarity between the accused persons. (See. Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) and Another, (2021) 6 SCC 230).
13. Thus, the grant of anticipatory bail to Accused No. 6 cannot be treated as determinative of the petitioner's entitlement where the prosecution attributes a materially different and more substantial role to him. The Court is required to independently examine the accusation and the material concerning the petitioner rather than extend the benefit of parity as an automatic consequence.
14. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, particularly the specific and substantive allegation that the petitioner was the principal supplier of the alleged contraband, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents attributed to him by the prosecution, and the stated necessity for custodial interrogation for the purpose of a fair and effective investigation, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not made out a case for the extraordinary discretionary protection of anticipatory bail. The circumstance that another accused has been granted such protection does not materially alter the position, since the principle of parity cannot override the distinction arising from the different role attributed to the petitioner.
15. For the aforesaid, without expressing any final opinion on the merits or veracity of the prosecution case, and leaving all questions of fact and law open for consideration at the appropriate stage, this Court finds that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the parameters governing the grant of anticipatory bail. The application for anticipatory bail is, therefore, liable to be rejected.
16. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
