CRLP/9451/2026 of Santhosh @ M. Santhosh Vs The State of Telangana, on 14 July 2026

ORDER

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.1 in FIR No. 57 of 2026 of Jetprol (Veepanagandla) Police Station, Wanaparthy, facing accusations for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “NDPS Act”).

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9451 of 2026

3. Heard Mr. E. Venkatesh, 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 10.05.2026, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Veepanagandla Police Station, upon receiving credible information regarding the transportation of Ganja in an Auto Rickshaw for the purpose of sale, complied with the prescribed procedure and secured the presence of independent mediators before proceeding to the spot near Vallabhapur Thanda Cross Road. Upon reaching the spot, the Police intercepted an Auto Rickshaw bearing Registration No. TG 15 T 2571, which was being driven by accused No.2. During enquiry, accused No.2 allegedly confessed that the Ganja/contraband was concealed beneath the driver's seat of the Auto Rickshaw. Thereafter, the vehicle was shifted to a suitable place, and a search was conducted in the presence of the mediators, during which the Police seized 15 grams of Ganja, one Samsung mobile phone, and the Auto Rickshaw under the cover of a panchanama. It is further alleged that, during his confessional statement, accused No.2 disclosed that accused Nos.1, 3, and 4 had supplied the seized Ganja and that all the accused were involved in procuring and selling Ganja for illegal gain. Accordingly, a crime was registered against the petitioner and the other accused.

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9451 of 2026

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime. He contends that the petitioner neither possessed, transported, sold, nor otherwise dealt with any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. It is further submitted that, except for the alleged confessional statement of accused No.2, the Investigating Agency has not collected any independent material connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. According to the learned counsel, the said confessional statement has no evidentiary value and is inadmissible in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1. He further contends that the mandatory safeguards and procedural requirements prescribed under the NDPS Act were not duly complied with by the Investigating Agency during the course of search and seizure. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of the locality, there is no likelihood of his absconding, and he undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner in relation to the commission of the offence under the NDPS Act. It is further contended that accused No.2 voluntarily disclosed the name of the petitioner along with those of the other two accused and stated that they had jointly procured and sold the Ganja for illegal gain. It is also alleged that the

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9451 of 2026

petitioner had supplied the contraband to accused No.2 for the purpose of sale. Having regard to the active role attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the offence, the nature and gravity of the allegations, and the necessity for further investigation, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the material placed on record.

8. A careful consideration of the pleadings and the material placed on record reveals that the allegations against the petitioner/accused No.1 are founded primarily upon the alleged confessional statement of accused No.2 recorded during the course of investigation. Admittedly, no contraband was recovered from the possession or at the instance of the petitioner. The contraband allegedly recovered in the present case is 15 grams of Ganja, which was seized from accused No.2.

9. A careful reading of the First Information Report further discloses that, according to accused No.2, the petitioner and the other accused were habitual consumers of Ganja and used to smoke it together on several occasions. It is alleged that, during one such occasion, the petitioner informed the co-accused that substantial monetary gain could be earned by selling Ganja and, pursuant to such understanding, allegedly handed over 10 grams of Ganja to accused No.2 for the purpose of sale. It is on the basis

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9451 of 2026

of the said allegation that the prosecution seeks to implicate the petitioner in the commission of the present offence. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the alleged confessional statement of the co-accused cannot, by itself, constitute substantive evidence against the petitioner. Therefore, at this stage, the implication of the petitioner rests substantially upon a piece of material whose evidentiary value is, prima facie, limited in law.

10. Further, the prosecution itself alleges recovery of only 15 grams of Ganja. Under the Notification issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers under Sections 2(viia) and 2(xxiiia) of the NDPS Act, 15 grams of Ganja falls within the category of small quantity. Consequently, the rigours contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which ordinarily govern the grant of bail in cases involving commercial quantity, are not attracted to the facts of the present case.

11. In these circumstances, the application for anticipatory bail is required to be examined on the well-settled principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, the material collected during investigation, the necessity for custodial interrogation, the possibility of the accused absconding, and the likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence.

12. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly the absence of any recovery from the petitioner, the fact that the alleged contraband recovered is only of small quantity, and the circumstance that the

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9451 of 2026

petitioner's implication is primarily based upon the statement of a co-accused, this Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner does not appear to be indispensable for the purpose of a fair and effective investigation. At the same time, the legitimate concerns of the prosecution regarding the progress of investigation can adequately be safeguarded by imposing appropriate and stringent conditions while extending the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions: (A) The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall surrender before the Station House Officer, Jetprol (Veepanagandla) Police Station, Wanaparthy, on or before 23.07.2026. Upon such surrender or in the event of arrest, the Station House Officer shall release the petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail on execution of personal bonds for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said Officer. (B) The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Tuesday and Saturday between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. for a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of his release on bail and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects.

NTR,J Crl.P. No. 9451 of 2026

(C) The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not leave India without obtaining prior permission from the jurisdictional Court concerned. (D) The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall furnish his complete residential address, mobile number and other contact particulars to the Investigating Officer and shall promptly intimate any change therein. (E) The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, influence, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case, nor shall he tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (F) The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall strictly comply with all the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. (G) Any willful breach or violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall render the petitioner liable to appropriate proceedings before the Court below, including cancellation of bail, in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS and other applicable law.

14. It is made clear that any observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present application for anticipatory bail and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 14.07.2026 svl