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 Accused No. 8 in C.O.R. No. 33 of 2026 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad, facing accusations for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B), 27(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “NDPS Act”).

3. Heard Dr. J. Vijayalaxmi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

4.1. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 09.05.2026, at about 12:00 noon, the Excise Inspector, along with mediators, conducted a search of the premises bearing House No.13-2-334, Jali Hanuman, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad, on the basis of credible information regarding the illegal possession and sale of Ganja. During the course of the search, the officials allegedly recovered one polythene cover containing 1.402 Kgs. of dry Ganja from inside the house and another polythene cover containing 1.060 Kgs. of dry Ganja from the dicky of a Honda Activa scooter. Thus, according to the prosecution, a total quantity of 2.462 Kgs. of dry Ganja was seized.

               4.2. The prosecution further relies upon the alleged confessional statements of the accused, wherein the accused are stated to have disclosed that they had sold 1 Kg. of Ganja each to the petitioner/Accused No.8 and another accused for a consideration of Rs.18,000/- per kilogram. On the basis of the complaint and the material collected during the course of the proceedings, the present crime came to be registered.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and that his implication is based solely upon the alleged confessional statements of the co-accused, without there being any independent or cogent material connecting him with the alleged offences. It is contended that no contraband or other incriminating material was recovered either from the possession of the petitioner or from his premises. Learned Counsel further submits that the alleged statements of the co-accused made before the authorities cannot, by themselves, be relied upon as substantive evidence against the petitioner, placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1. It is also contended that the mandatory safeguards applicable to the search and seizure proceedings were not duly complied with by the complainant and the officials accompanying her. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, is a permanent resident of Hyderabad, and is ready and willing to cooperate with the Investigating Agency. On the aforesaid grounds, learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of pre-arrest bail.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposing the petition, submits that the petitioner is involved in a serious offence and that his role in the alleged transaction has come to light during the course of investigation. According to the prosecution, the petitioner forms part of the supply chain and acted as a purchaser and downstream distributor of the contraband. It is further contended that the petitioner is absconding and that the investigation is still in progress. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that, having regard to the alleged role of the petitioner as a purchaser and downstream distributor of Ganja, his custodial interrogation is necessary to trace the source and distribution network and to ensure a fair and effective investigation. On these grounds, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the petition.

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

8. The prosecution case discloses that, during the surprise search conducted by the complainant and her team, a total quantity of 2.462 Kgs. of dry Ganja was seized and that, during the course of investigation, the role of the petitioner as an alleged downstream distributor came to light. At this stage, the Court is primarily required to examine whether the allegations disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner and whether his custodial interrogation is necessary for the purposes of investigation. The Court is not required to undertake a detailed appreciation or evaluation of the evidence at this stage.

9. The contention of the petitioner that his implication rests solely upon the alleged confessional statements of the co-accused, and that such statements are inadmissible in evidence, cannot be conclusively adjudicated upon in the present proceedings. The admissibility, reliability and evidentiary value of the material collected during the course of investigation are matters which may appropriately be considered at the relevant stage of the proceedings. The Court, while considering an application for anticipatory bail during the pendency of investigation, cannot undertake a detailed examination of the prosecution evidence or prejudge the merits of the case.

10. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has not been available to the Investigating Agency and has allegedly been absconding since the arrest of Accused Nos.1 to 3. The prosecution contends that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to ascertain the source of procurement of the contraband, trace the chain of distribution, identify other persons allegedly involved in the network, and investigate the financial transactions connected with the contraband. These aspects assume significance in a case involving allegations of possession, procurement and distribution of narcotic substances, where effective investigation into the alleged supply and distribution network is of considerable importance.

11. The mere fact that no contraband was recovered from the possession or premises of the petitioner, by itself, cannot be treated as conclusive in his favour, particularly when the specific allegation against him is that he acted as a purchaser and downstream distributor of the contraband. The absence of recovery from the petitioner is, therefore, a circumstance to be considered along with the other material collected during the investigation, but cannot, at this stage, by itself, negate the prosecution's allegation regarding his alleged role in the supply chain.

12. Likewise, the contention regarding alleged non-compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguards prescribed under the NDPS Act cannot, in the circumstances of the present case, be conclusively adjudicated upon in proceedings, while considering the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail. Such issues, particularly where they involve appreciation of the circumstances surrounding search, seizure, and the material collected during investigation, are more appropriately considered at the relevant stage of the proceedings.

13. It is also pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, and State represented by CBI v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, has recognized that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and that custodial interrogation may, in appropriate cases, constitute a relevant and significant consideration against the grant of such relief. Where custodial interrogation is considered necessary for an effective investigation, the Court is required to balance the petitioner's right to personal liberty against the legitimate requirements of the investigation.

14. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the quantity of contraband allegedly seized, the specific allegation regarding the petitioner's role as a purchaser and downstream distributor, the present stage of investigation, the fact that the petitioner is stated to be unavailable to the Investigating Agency, and the prosecution's assertion regarding the necessity of custodial interrogation for tracing the source of procurement, distribution network, other persons allegedly involved, and the associated financial transactions, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to make out a positive case for grant of anticipatory bail.

15. Accordingly, the petition is liable to be, and is hereby, dismissed.

16. It is made clear that the observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present application for anticipatory bail and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Nothing stated in this order shall prejudice either side at the subsequent stages of the proceedings. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.