ORDER : 1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) seeking to enlarge the petitioner Nos.1 and 2/Accused Nos.1 & 2 on bail in Cr.No.176 of 2025 of Government Railway Police Station, Visakhapatnam, registered against the petitioner Nos.1 and 2/Accused Nos.1 & 2 herein for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.05.2025 at 12.05 hours, while the Government Railway Police conducting general check in Visakhapatnam Railway Station, on suspicious circumstances, the petitioners were apprehended while they were in possession of ganja. The police seized 19.5 Kgs of ganja in three packets from the 1 st petitioner and 13 Kgs of ganja in two packets from the 2 nd petitioner under the cover of a mediatornama and registered an FIR. During the investigation, the accused were apprehended and remanded to judicial custody on 16.05.2025. 3. Mr.K.Prudhvi Raju, the learned counsel for the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 contends that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are innocent of the alleged offence and have been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioners undertake to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 further contends that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were allegedly carrying 19.5 Kgs and 13.0 Kgs of ganja respectively. If the two quantities are apportioned between the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, they are not carrying the commercial quantity of ganja. Therefore, the rigor under Sections 29, 36 and 37 of ‘the NDPS Act’ cannot be applied and urged to enlarge the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 on bail. 4. The petitioners were arrested on 16.05.2025 and ever since they have been in judicial custody. Learned counsel further relied on a decision of this Court in Shafik Khan and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh in Crl. Pet. No. 4326 of 2019 dated 27.08.2019 at Para No.6 , wherein the seized ganja was apportioned in between the accused and the petitioners were enlarged on bail as they were not allegedly carrying commercial quantity of contraband. 5. Pet. No. 4326 of 2019 dated 27.08.2019 at Para No.6 , wherein the seized ganja was apportioned in between the accused and the petitioners were enlarged on bail as they were not allegedly carrying commercial quantity of contraband. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were spot arrested and they were carrying 32.5 Kgs of ganja. The rigor of Section 29 of ‘the NDPS Act’ is squarely applicable to the petitioners. The judgment relied upon by the petitioners in Shafik Khan’s case (supra) may not be applicable to the instant case, as the facts and circumstances are entirely different. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further contends that several witnesses are to be examined, co-accused are to be apprehended and main source of the contraband is yet to unearthed and urged to dismiss the bail application. 6. As seen from the record, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 1 and 2 were allegedly found in possession of 19.5 Kgs and 13 Kgs of ganja respectively. The petitioners were arrested on the spot. 7. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Shafik Khan’s case (supra) observed that each accused therein, in order to have unlawful enrichment, individually purchased 4 Kgs of ganja for selling at higher price and hence apportionment of ganja was considered by not invoking Section 29 of ‘the NDPS Act’. 8. In Crl. Pet. No. 6809 of 2024 dated 22.10.2024 in between Setty Vinaya Kumar & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another learned Single Judge of this Court at Para No.4, apportioned the contraband and enlarged the petitioners on bail as the apportioned contraband was not above the commercial quantity. 9. Another learned Single Judge of this Court in Kanneboina Ramesh and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh , 2007 (2) ALD (Crl.) 233 (AP) at Para No.29, observed that the accused therein were in possession of 15 KGs of ganja after apportionment and enlarged them on bail saying that Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act’ was not applicable in the light of the facts and circumstances of that case. 10. Another learned Single Judge of this Court in Bablu v. State of Andhra Pradesh in Crl. Pet. 10. Another learned Single Judge of this Court in Bablu v. State of Andhra Pradesh in Crl. Pet. No. 4406 of 2023 dated 11.07.2023 at Para No.6, observed that the apportionment of 112 KGs of ganja was not possible at the juncture of considering the bail application, among five accused therein, and dismissed the bail application. 11. A learned Single Judge of High Court of Delhi in Vishwajeet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) , 2024 SCC Online Delhi 1284 at Para No.28 to 31 held as under: “28. It is the case of the prosecution that the two accused persons were found travelling together and were apprehended together on 02.12.2020. They were carrying bags from which 12 kg of Ganja each was recovered. Though individually the quantity recovered would be intermediate, the prosecution by analyzing the CDR details of the accused persons, alleges that as they were acting in conspiracy with each other, the quantity recovered from both of them have to be clubbed together making it a commercial quantity. 29. In Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot (Supra), the Supreme Court held that merely because the accused persons were found together but were individually carrying the recovered substance, in the absence of any other evidence to suggest that there was any abetment and/or criminal conspiracy within the meaning of Section 29 of the NDPS Act, said provision cannot be invoked. The said case was, however, considering the order of conviction passed by the High Court. 30. In Nirmala (Supra) and Sagar Nana Borkar (Supra), unlike the present case, the prosecution had not alleged any other material/evidence against the accused but for them being travelling together with contraband. 31. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Awadhesh Yadav (Supra), after referring to the various precedents on the issue of clubbing together of the quantities of contraband recovered individually, observed as under: “49. From the provisions of law and the essence of case- laws, as discussed above, following principles can be culled out governing clubbing of the quantity of contraband recovered from two or more co-accused, at the stage of bail: i. invocation of offence of abetment and/or conspiracy under Section 29 of the Act is must for clubbing of quantity. From the provisions of law and the essence of case- laws, as discussed above, following principles can be culled out governing clubbing of the quantity of contraband recovered from two or more co-accused, at the stage of bail: i. invocation of offence of abetment and/or conspiracy under Section 29 of the Act is must for clubbing of quantity. However, there cannot be a straight jacket formula for clubbing the quantity of contraband recovered from all the accused, merely on the basis of invocation of offence under Section 29 of the Act. It will depend on the factual backdrop of each case and the incriminating material available against the accused persons. ii. the incriminating material relied upon to invoke the offence of abetment and/or conspiracy under Section 29 of the Act, has to be cogent and convincing against each one of the accused charged with the offence of abetment and/or conspiracy. iii. in a case where joint recovery of contraband has been effected from two or more co-accused, the recovered contraband cannot be equally divided amongst the number of accused to determine whether the quantity of contraband recovered in “commercial quantity” or not. iv. where accused persons are travelling together in the same private vehicle individually carrying contraband, it will not be proper to consider the alleged recovery to be an individual recovery and the contraband recovered from all persons can be clubbed. v. if an accused is a habitual offender, it gives rise to an inference that he knows the tricks of the trade. In such a situation, previous involvement of the accused in the case(s) under the NDPS Act, is an additional factor which could be considered, besides other incriminating circumstances, for adding the quantities of contraband recovered from two or more co-accused.” 12. Indeed, although the quantity of ganja originally recovered from the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 was below the commercial quantity, the mediators’ report reveals an element of conspiracy involving in transportation of the contraband from an unknown individual to a specified destination. As per the mediators’ report dated 16.05.2025, the petitioners agreed to transport approximately 32.5 Kgs of ganja from Visakhapatnam to Mumbai for unlawful consideration of Rs. 4,000/- per trip. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife. As per the mediators’ report dated 16.05.2025, the petitioners agreed to transport approximately 32.5 Kgs of ganja from Visakhapatnam to Mumbai for unlawful consideration of Rs. 4,000/- per trip. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife. It is further mentioned in the mediators’ report that the petitioners, along with their son, were involved in the transportation of the contraband, which constitutes a commercial quantity, from Visakhapatnam to Mumbai. In this context, it is relevant to refer and extract applicability of Section 29 of ‘the NDPS Act’ for better understanding and deciding the issue. 13. Section 29 of the NDPS Act says as under: “ 29. Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy .— (1) Whoever abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence punishable under this Chapter, shall, whether such offence be or be not committed in consequence of such abetment or in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy, and notwithstanding anything contained in section 116 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), be punishable with the punishment provided for the offence. (2) A person abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence, within the meaning of this section, who, in India, abets or is a party to the criminal conspiracy to the commission of any act in a place without and beyond India which— (a) would constitute an offence if committed within India. (b) under the laws of such place, is an offence relating to narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances having all the legal conditions required to constitute it such an offence the same as or analogous to the legal conditions required to constitute it an offence punishable under this Chapter, if committed within India.” 14. On a fair reading of Section 29 of ‘the NDPS Act’ it is clear that whoever abets or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable under Chapter IV, irrespective of whether the offence is actually committed as a consequence of such abetment, shall be punishable with the imprisonment provided for the offence. Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act,’ stipulates that the offences under ‘the NDPS Act’ are cognizable and non-bailable. 15. Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act,’ stipulates that the offences under ‘the NDPS Act’ are cognizable and non-bailable. 15. Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of ‘the NDPS Act’ emphasizes that where the Public Prosecutor opposes a bail application, the court may consider granting bail only if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are not guilty of the offence and that they are unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the petitioners were found in possession of a commercial quantity of ganja and were arrested on the spot. As per the averments of the mediators’ report, the petitioners, being husband and wife, shared a guilty intention with an unknown person to transport a commercial quantity of ganja from Visakhapatnam to Mumbai. 16. The rigor of Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act’ squarely applies to the case of the petitioners, and therefore, their request for grant of bail cannot be considered at this juncture. Consequently, the petitioners’ plea to consider the matter on the basis of apportioning the commercial quantity of ganja between them is not sustainable and valid in light of Section 29 of ‘the NDPS Act’ based on the averments of the mediators’ report. 17. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the petition has no merit at this stage. 18. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.