ORDER T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J. - This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., has been filed by the Petitioner/A1, seeking anticipatory bail in Cr.No.149/2020 of Kotananduru Police Station, East Godavari District. 2. The above crime was registered against the Petitioner herein and others for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The Prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 11.10.2020 at about 09.00 AM, upon receipt of credible information, the Sub Inspector of Police conducted vehicle checking on Sarugudu - Rowthulapudi road, near a closed Quarry, outskirts of Mathayyapeta village, Rowthulapudi Mandal, the A.5 and A6 were caught red handed by the Police while they were found in possession of 2 Kgs of Ganja in 2 packets and while they were doing pilot to Ganja van on two motor cycles i.e., Hero Glamour bearing registration No.AP31 BX 1190 and Honda Shine bearing registration No.AP39 EP 3935 respectively belongs to A.1 and A.2; A.4 was caught red handed at 09.10 AM on the same day while he was transporting 950 kgs of Ganja packed in 38 plastic gunny bags (each bag contains 25 kgs of Ganja) over the Eicher Van bearing registration No.AP37 W 7593 along with A.1 to A.3 from Darakonda village of Visakha Agency to Rowthulapudi. A.1 to A.3 were absconded from the scene of offence. A.4 to A.6 were arrested and the Police recorded their confessional statement in the presence of mediators and also seized 950 kgs of Ganja worth Rs. 23,75,000/-, 2 packets of Ganja each 1kg total 2kgs worth Rs.5,000/- and the motor vehicles as referred to above under the cover of mediators report. Based on the mediators report, the case in above crime was registered against the Accused persons. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case; no specific overt acts are attributed against the Petitioner; based on the confessional statement of A.4 to A.6, the Petitioner is arrayed as accused; except the said confessional statement, no other material has been collected to connect the Petitioner in the commission of the offence; Petitioner is not having acquaintance with the other accused; except the filing of charge sheet, the entire investigation is completed; Petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and he is ready to furnish sufficient sureties. 5. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor filed a counter-affidavit, contending that Petitioner/A.1 is doing Ganja business and he is moving in and around deep forest area, he along with A.2 purchased 950 kgs of Ganja from unknown persons of Orissa state and got loaded the said Ganja in Eicher van which was brought by Petitioner/A.1 with the driver A.3 and also with the help of A.4 to A.6; Petitioner is habituated in doing Ganja business by supplying the contraband to others; Petitioner has not involved in other cases in the jurisdiction of Tuni Rural circle. 6. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the petition as well as in the counter-affidavit. 7. It is trite law that the power to grant a pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., is extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised sparingly. Thus, pre-arrest bail cannot be granted in a routine manner. The Hon'ble Apex Court, adverting to its previous precedents, has discussed the parameters to be considered while considering pre-arrest bail applications, in the case of State of A.P. v. Bimal Krishna Kundu, (1997) 8 SCC 104 has held as under: '8. A three-Judge Bench of this Court has stated in Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan [ (1985) 2 SCC 597 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 297 : AIR 1985 SC 969 ] : (SCC p. 600, para 5) '5. Relevant considerations governing the court's decision in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 are materially different from those when an application for bail by a person who is arrested in the course of investigation as also by a person who is convicted and his appeal is pending before the higher court and bail is sought during the pendency of the appeal.' 9. Similar observations have been made by us in a recent judgment in State v. Anil Sharma [ (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 : JT (1997) 7 SC 651] : (SCC pp. 189-90, para 8) 'The consideration which should weigh with the Court while dealing with a request for anticipatory bail need not be the same as for an application to release on bail after arrest.' xxxxxxxxxxxx 12. 189-90, para 8) 'The consideration which should weigh with the Court while dealing with a request for anticipatory bail need not be the same as for an application to release on bail after arrest.' xxxxxxxxxxxx 12. We are strongly of the opinion that this is not a case for exercising the discretion under Section 438 in favour of granting anticipatory bail to the respondents. It is disquieting that implications of arming the respondents, when they are pitted against this sort of allegations involving well-orchestrated conspiracy, with a pre-arrest bail order, though subject to some conditions, have not been taken into account by the learned Single Judge. We have absolutely no doubt that if the respondents are equipped with such an order before they are interrogated by the police it would greatly harm the investigation and would impede the prospects of unearthing all the ramifications involved in the conspiracy. Public interest also would suffer as a consequence. Having apprised himself of the nature and seriousness of the criminal conspiracy and the adverse impact of it on 'the career of millions of students', learned Single Judge should not have persuaded himself to exercise the discretion which Parliament had very thoughtfully conferred on the Sessions Judges and the High Courts through Section 438 of the Code, by favouring the respondents with such a pre-arrest bail order.' 8. The learned counsel for the Petitioner/A.1 submits that the initiation of the proceedings against the Petitioner was premature and the Petitioner has been falsely roped in the present case merely on the basis of the confessional statement of the A.4 to A.6; there is no incriminating evidence against the Petitioner; the Petitioner did not meddle with the investigation; the Petitioner has no link with the said co-accused persons and the Investigation authorities have not collected any independent material showing the Petitioner's involvement in the commission of the offence. 9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that the investigation could not be completed, as the Petitioner absconded and contraband involved in this crime is a commercial quantity; the contention that confessional statement is a weak piece of evidence cannot be taken at this stage, and in the event, the Petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, he may not cooperate with the investigation and may threaten the witnesses. 10. 10. In the present case, the alleged recovery of 950 kg of Gaja was effected by possessing the co-accused is a commercial quantity. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor requested to prevent the Petitioner/A.1 from committing any further offence by transporting Ganja to others; the Petitioner's request may not be considered. As seen from the record, there are specific allegations against the Petitioner that he and co-accused persons were indulging in transporting and selling Ganja. 11. It is noted that the co-accused have been arrested and they have made specific allegations against the Petitioner in their confessional statements. It is relevant to note that the statements of the co-accused are to be tested at the time of trial. No reason has also been pleaded as to why the co-accused would try to falsely implicate the Petitioner. 12. It is erroneous to say that confessionals statement made by the accused during interrogation cannot be considered or looked into to connect the other co-accused. Such disclosure statement of co-accused can certainly be taken into consideration for providing lead in investigation and even during trial it is admissible under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act. 13. Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession. 14. Furthermore, the recovery involved in this case amounts to commercial quantity and from the facts and circumstances of the case offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act is disclosed attracting bar of Section 37 of NDPS Act. 15. The jurisdiction of the court to grant bail is circumscribed by the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It can be granted in case there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence, and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is the mandate of the legislature which is required to be followed. At this juncture, a reference to Section 37 of the Act is apposite. That provision makes the offences under the Act cognizable and non-bailable. It is the mandate of the legislature which is required to be followed. At this juncture, a reference to Section 37 of the Act is apposite. That provision makes the offences under the Act cognizable and non-bailable. It reads thus: Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),- (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for 3 [offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub- section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. 16. No doubt, no contraband was recovered from the Petitioner's possession, but the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that the Petitioner is the prime Accused; he is moving in and around deep forest area for purchase of Ganja; he along with A.2 purchased 950 kgs of Ganja packed in 38 bags @ Rs.2,500/- per kg from unknown persons of Orissa State; Petitioner secured A.4 to A.6 for loading and unloading of Ganja bags in Eicher Van bearing No.AP37 W 7593 with driver/A.3 from agency area to its destination; the Investigating officer seized the Honda Shine Motorcycle bearing No.AP39 EP 3935 and it was registered in the name of Killo Lakshmi, who is the A.1's close associative. The investigation in this case still needs to be completed. The Petitioner/A.1 still needs to be apprehended. Still, the investigation agency has to collect the evidence relating to the Petitioner's involvement in the alleged offence. If the Petitioner is released on bail, there is every possibility of interfering with the further investigation. 17. The investigation in this case still needs to be completed. The Petitioner/A.1 still needs to be apprehended. Still, the investigation agency has to collect the evidence relating to the Petitioner's involvement in the alleged offence. If the Petitioner is released on bail, there is every possibility of interfering with the further investigation. 17. Learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta, (2022) 12 SCC 633 wherein, it held that: 11. Having gone through the records along with the tabulated statement of the respondents submitted on behalf of the petitioner NCB and on carefully perusing the impugned orders [Pallulabid Ahamad Arimutta v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3516, Mohd. Afzal v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3433, Munees Kavil Paramabath v. State, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3431, Abu Thahir v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3517, Mohd. Afzal v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1294, Munees Kavil Parambath v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3432] passed in each case, it emerges that except for the voluntary statements of A-1 and A-2 in the first case and that of the respondents themselves recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, it appears, prima facie, that no substantial material was available with the prosecution at the time of arrest to connect the respondents with the allegations levelled against them of indulging in drug trafficking. It has not been denied by the prosecution that except for the respondent in SLP (Crl.) No. 1569 of 2021, none of the other respondents were found to be in possession of commercial quantities of psychotropic substances, as contemplated under the NDPS Act. 12. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamal Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 , that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the petitioner-NCB, on the basis of the confession/voluntary statements of the respondents or the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDSP Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the petitioner-NCB, on the basis of the confession/voluntary statements of the respondents or the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDSP Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail. The CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined the stage of trial. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the orders dated 16th January, 2020, 19th December, 2019 and 20th January, 2020 pased in SLP (Crl.) No@ Diary No.22702/2020, SLP (Crl.) No.1454/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1773-74/2021 and SLP (Crl.) No.2080/2021 respectively. The impugned orders are, accordingly, upheld and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the petitioner-NCB seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respective respondents, are dismissed as meritless. 18. It is to be kept in mind that the investigation is currently at a nascent stage. The considerations governing the grant of anticipatory bail are materially different than those to be considered while adjudicating application for grant of regular bail, as in the case referred to above, the accused is already under arrest and substantial investigation has been carried out by the investigating agency. 19. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 held that a disclosure statement made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is impermissible as evidence. However, it is relevant to observe that the Court is considering applications under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C for pre-arrest bail. The applicants will be entitled to the benefit of the said judgment, in the opinion of this Court, after the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed. 20. The Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2087 has held as under: '4. The High Court decided to grant pre-arrest bail to the respondents on the only ground that no recovery was effected from the respondents and that they had been implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused Dinesh Kumar. The High Court decided to grant pre-arrest bail to the respondents on the only ground that no recovery was effected from the respondents and that they had been implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused Dinesh Kumar. Therefore, reliance was placed by the High Court in the majority judgment of this Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 . xxxxxxxxxxxx 8. In cases of this nature, the respondents may be able to take advantage of the decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), perhaps at the time of arguing the regular bail application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of the trial. 9. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not really warranted. Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court fell into an error in granting anticipatory bail to the respondents.' 21. In an Appeal filed against the granting of anticipatory bail for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in State by the Inspector of Police v. B. Ramu, CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8137 of 2022 that: 11. In case of recovery of such a huge quantity of narcotic substance, the Courts should be slow in granting even regular bail to the accused what to talk of anticipatory bail more so when the accused is alleged to be having criminal antecedents. 12. For entertaining a prayer for bail in a case involving recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, the Court would have to mandatorily record the satisfaction in terms of the rider contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 22. It is settled law 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 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex, in the case of State V. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 has also underlined the importance of custodial interrogation as under: '6. We find force in the submission of the CBI 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. We find force in the submission of the CBI 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. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders. xxxxxxxxxxxx 8. The above observations are more germane while considering an application for post-arrest bail. The consideration which should weigh with the Court while dealing with a request for anticipatory bail need not be the same as for an application to release on bail after arrest. At any rate the learned Single Judge ought not to have side-stepped the apprehension expressed by the CBI (that the respondent would influence the witnesses) as one which can be made against all accused persons in all cases. The apprehension was quite reasonable when considering the high position which the respondent held and in the nature of accusation relating to a period during which he held such office.' 23. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the Respondent-State that the Petitioner is the prime accused, who purchased Ganja along with A.2 and secured A.4 to A.6 for loading and unloading of Ganja bags and its transportation from agency area to its destination through motor vehicles and according to the prosecution's case, he participated in the commission of the offence. Still, on seeing the Police, he absconded from the place of offence. Still, on seeing the Police, he absconded from the place of offence. The involvement and participation of the Petitioner in the commission of the offence is referred to in the First Information Report, and the said facts of the case, this Court views that the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner/Accused No.1 is required in this case for proper and just investigation of this case. The offence alleged to be committed by the Petitioner/Accused is against the society, and thus, 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. Thus, the implication of the Petitioner prima facie cannot be said to be without justification. That being so, this Court cannot return a finding that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Petitioner is not guilty of charged offences. There is no reason available to this Court to record satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the Petitioner is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Thus, no such circumstances have been made out in this case. This Court does not find it a proper case for granting the relief of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner/A.1. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the case of either of the parties, the anticipatory bail application of Petitioner/A.1 is liable to be dismissed. 24. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.