Safiya Malik

In a matter arising under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Single Bench of Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking anticipatory bail. Noting the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Court declined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner, concluding that the case did not warrant protection under Section 438 CrPC.

The petitioner was named as Accused No. 6 in Crime No. 51 of 2025 registered by Tadepalligudem Town Police Station, West Godavari District, for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The case originated on the basis of information received by the police regarding a group of persons engaged in the illicit procurement and distribution of ganja. The contraband in question, amounting to 13.288 kilograms, was seized during the apprehension of five individuals.

Also Read: “Intention to Kill Was Present; Delay in Statements, When Explained, Will Not Aid the Accused”: Supreme Court upholds Life Sentence for Murder

The prosecution case, as outlined in the petition and counter, stated that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were users of ganja who had decided to purchase the substance in bulk for illegal distribution. They allegedly contacted the petitioner, who directed them to a location near the Andhra-Orissa border where ganja was available at a reduced rate. According to the prosecution, the petitioner provided Rs. 36,000 to Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and instructed them to procure 12 kilograms of ganja.

It was alleged that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 procured the contraband and subsequently received instructions from the petitioner via social media. The petitioner was said to have directed them to deliver specific quantities to Accused Nos. 3, 4, and 5 and retain portions for themselves and for delivery to the petitioner. During this process, all five co-accused were apprehended, and the contraband was seized. The petitioner, however, remained absconding.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that his client had no prior criminal history and that his implication was solely based on the confession of the co-accused. It was argued that there was no independent material to substantiate the petitioner’s alleged involvement and that no recovery had been made from him. The counsel further pointed out that the seized quantity fell under the non-commercial category and submitted that the case lacked sufficient grounds for denying anticipatory bail.

In response, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the petitioner played a central role in orchestrating the illegal trade. It was submitted that he remained absconding and had not cooperated with the investigation. The State further argued that the statements of the co-accused provided a credible basis for the allegations and that granting anticipatory bail would impede the ongoing investigation and risk influencing witnesses.

Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao considered the submissions of both parties and reviewed the prosecution materials. It was noted that the offence under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act was of a serious nature and that although the seized quantity did not qualify as commercial, it was significantly above the threshold for a small quantity.

The Court addressed the petitioner’s contention that the allegations were based solely on the confessional statements of the co-accused. It recorded: “It is erroneous to say that confessional statements made by the accused during interrogation cannot be considered or looked into to connect the other co-accused.” The Court clarified that such statements could be taken into account during investigation and that the admissibility of those statements would be examined during trial under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Quoting the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar, the Court held that: “To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not really warranted.” The Court also referred to the judgment in State v. Anil Sharma, where the Supreme Court had observed that: “Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code.”

With regard to the ongoing investigation, the Court noted that it was incomplete and that the petitioner had evaded arrest. The Court remarked that “no reason has been pleaded as to why the co-accused would try to falsely implicate the petitioner,” and that the nature of allegations suggested a deeper conspiracy. It further recorded: “If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, there is a significant risk of interference with the ongoing investigation.”

The Court also addressed the application of the judgment in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, holding that the benefit of that judgment, relating to statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, could be availed only at the stage of trial or while seeking regular bail, not during pre-arrest proceedings.

Summarising the applicable legal standard, the Court stated that “the power to grant a pre-arrest bail under Section 438 is extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised sparingly,” and that “no such circumstances have been made out in this case.”

Also Read: “Where an Arbitration Clause Is Contained in an Invoice… the Same Binds Both Parties”: Delhi High Court Refers Commercial Dispute to Arbitration Based on Terms Printed in Tax Invoices

After considering the materials on record and the submissions of both sides, the Court found no merit in the application for anticipatory bail and dismissed the petition. “Considering all the attending facts and circumstances of the case as well as the gravity of the offence, as also the settled principle of law that power of grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is to be sparingly exercised in extraordinary circumstances... this Court does not find it a proper case for granting the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A.6.”

The Court stated that the dismissal was made without commenting on the merits of the case so as to not prejudice either side. The criminal petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were directed to stand closed.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: K. Rama Koteswara Rao, Advocate

For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Kamma Aravind Kishore @ Kamma Aravind v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Neutral Citation: APHC010084082025

Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 1807 of 2025

Bench: Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao

[Read/Download order]