ORDER : A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J. 1. Petitioner herein, who is arrayed as accused No.3 in Crime No.27 of 2025 of Chirala II Town Police Station, Bapatla District, registered with the allegations of committing the offences punishable under Sections 20(b) (ii)(B) r/w 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [for short ‘NDPS Act’], filed the present application invoking Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [BNNS], with a prayer to grant pre-arrest bail, directing his release in the event of his arrest, in respect of crime referred. 2. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petition. 3. Heard both sides extensively. 4. The petitioner denied all the allegations as to his involvement contending that no contraband is seized from the petitioner, there is no direct evidence and the inadmissible confession of the other accused, from whom the alleged contraband is seized alone, is the basis. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail. 5. Point for determination: Whether the petitioner/A3 is entitled for the relief of pre-arrest bail in respect of Crime No. 27 of 2025 of Chirala II Town Police Station, in terms of Section 482 of BNSS? If so, on what conditions? Case of the Prosecution:- 6. A1 purchased huge quantity of Ganja from A7. On 03.03.2024 A3 contacted A1 for supply of Ganja of 6Kgs and deal was settled at Rs.7000/- per Kg. At the instance of A1, A4 and A6 went to the house of A3 and handed over 2 Kgs of Ganja, for which A3 gave Rs.4000/- out of Rs.14,000/- and asked them to handover remaining Ganja agreeing to pay the balance, on supply of balance Ganja. Accordingly on 05.03.2025 when A4 to A6 came to a place near the Bridge at Bandaru Nageswara Rao Colony, Chirala, to hand over the same to A3, police party conducted raid in the presence of mediators, and recovered the Ganja. The statements given by the accused No.4 to 6, disclosed the involvement of the other accused including A3/ petitioner herein. Hence, the case is registered against the petitioner/A3 and he is liable for legal action. Case of the Petitioner: 7. There is no recovery from the petitioner. There is no direct evidence. The burden to prove is against A4, and the alleged quantity is not commercial quantity. He has no criminal antecedents. Arguments: Submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor: 8. Hence, the case is registered against the petitioner/A3 and he is liable for legal action. Case of the Petitioner: 7. There is no recovery from the petitioner. There is no direct evidence. The burden to prove is against A4, and the alleged quantity is not commercial quantity. He has no criminal antecedents. Arguments: Submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor: 8. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP.No.12621 of 2024 dated 19.09.2024, where anticipatory bail was granted to co-accused, when the same relief was sought by the other accused, observed that the State may move an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail, granted to other co-accused. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in another SLP.No.9540 of 2025 dated 07.07.2025 observed that there is no error in refusing anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the NDPS cases. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the offence is serious in nature and the petitioner is having criminal antecedents, and involved in (13) cases, including the cases under NDPS Act. Therefore, he does not deserve granting of pre-arrest bail. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner:- 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the facts in the cases cited are not known and the facts are to be considered while granting or refusing the bail; in the present case, there is no recovery from the petitioner/accused. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner while referring the Remand Report of other accused submitted that the statements of the co-accused as to handing over of certain Ganaja and waiting to handover the balance etc., are concocted and they are inadmissible. Analysis and Discussion:- Precedents: 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while referring the observations made in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibba Vs. State of Punjab,1980 AIR 1632; 1980 SCR (3) 383; (1980) 2 SCC 565 in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1 vide Special Leave Petition in Crime No.7281, 7282 of 2017, dated 29.01.2020, observed that certain parameters kept in view, while dealing with the applications for grant of pre-arrest bail. State of Punjab,1980 AIR 1632; 1980 SCR (3) 383; (1980) 2 SCC 565 in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1 vide Special Leave Petition in Crime No.7281, 7282 of 2017, dated 29.01.2020, observed that certain parameters kept in view, while dealing with the applications for grant of pre-arrest bail. They are as follows:- “(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; (iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences. (v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. (vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; (viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; (ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.” 13. From the opposition of the Prosecution, it is seen that the petitioner/A3 is having criminal history and suspect in Cherala II Town Police Station and they are maintained vide Suspect Sheet No.125. The particulars of the cases registered against A3 are hereunder:- 1. Cr.No.90/2019 u/s.420, 493, 496 IPC of Peddakakani P.S., 2. Cr. No.19/2020 u/s 307, 506 IPC of Araandalpet PS. 3. Cr.No. 232/2019 u/s 352, 353 r/w 34 IPC of Chirala II Town PS. 4. Cr.No. 147/2022 u/s 379 IPC of Palakollu Town P.S. 5. Cr. No. 103/2022 u/s 379 IPC of Dendulur P.S. 6. Cr.No. 74/2022 u/s 337, 304-A IPC of Bapatla Rural PS 7. Cr.No. 170/2022 u/s 7(A) r/w 8(c) of APP Act of Chirala II Town PS. 8. Cr.No. 218/2022 U/s 379 IPC of Patamata PS, Vijayawada City. 9. Cr. No. 65/2023 u/s 379 IPC of Patamata PS of NTR District. 10. Cr.No. 56/2023 u/s 8 (c) r/w 20(b) NDPS Act of Chirala II Town PS. 11. Cr.No. 80/2023 u/s 8 (c)r/w 20(b) NDPS Act of Chirala II Town PS. 12. Cr.No 87/2023 u/s 8(c) r/w 20(b) NDPS Act of Chirala I Town P.S 13. Cr. No. 91/2023 u/s 20 (b) (ii) (C) r/w 8 (c) NDPS Act of Chirala II Town P.S. Conclusion:- 14. Upon considering the aspects of 1) nature and gravity of the accusation 2) likelihood of the accused absconding, 3) tampering with evidence, 4) criminal antecedents of the accused 5) likelihood of repetition of offences, it is found that this is not a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Point No.1 is answered accordingly against the petitioner. 15. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed accordingly.