JUDGMENT Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest. 2. The petitioner is A-2 in Crime No.1 of 2020 of Peddapuram Police Station, East Godavari District. 3. The alleged offences against the petitioner are under Sections 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "NDPS Act"). 4. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that on the date of offence, A-1 to A-5, including the petitioner herein, who is A-2, have been illegally transporting 76 Kgs of Ganja in an auto rickshaw bearing No. AP 05 TH 0245. At that time, police apprehended the accused and seized the contraband from their possession. The petitioner, who is A-2, escaped from the scene of offence while other accused were apprehended by the police. Therefore, the petitioner has committed the aforesaid offences. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the mandatory provisions relating to the search, as contemplated under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, are not complied with properly in this case and the mediator's report is also vague regarding the complicity of the petitioner, who is A-2, in commission of the said offence. She would submit that the petitioner is falsely implicated in this case and other accused, who were arrested, were already enlarged on bail and thereby prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition. He would submit that as per the statement given by A-1 after his arrest that he got acquaintance with A-2 in jail when they were remanded to judicial custody in connection with other crime and thereafter all of them together indulged in illegally transporting 76 Kgs of Ganja, which is a commercial quantity and at that time, they were apprehended by the police and the contraband was seized and this petitioner escaped from the scene of offence while other accused were arrested by the police. Therefore, he submits that having regard to the gravity of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail and thereby prayed for dismissal of the petition. 8. Perused the record. 9. Therefore, he submits that having regard to the gravity of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail and thereby prayed for dismissal of the petition. 8. Perused the record. 9. The total quantity of the Ganja involved in this case is 76 Kgs, which is a huge quantity and commercial quantity. Therefore, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies to the facts of the case. Although, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the bag said to have been left by the petitioner, who is A-2, contains only 28 Kgs of the Ganja, the same cannot be segregated from the other quantity of Ganja. The total quantity of Ganja that was found in the auto rickshaw is 76 Kgs and the petitioner is also travelling in the said auto rickshaw in which 76 Kgs of Ganja in total was found. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is responsible for only 28 Kgs of Ganja found in the auto rickshaw. The record shows that, as per the statement given by A-1, who was arrested that the petitioner was also actively involved in transporting the Ganja of 76 Kgs. Therefore, the accusation made against him is prima facie well founded from the record. There is no material to presume that he is not guilty of commission of the said offence. So, in view of the gravity of the offence and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 10. In the result, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.