ORDER : Y. Lakshmana Rao, J. These two petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order as they arise out of one crime. The Criminal Petitions 6727 & 8183 of 2025 have 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 petitioners/Accused No.1 and 7 respectively on bail in Crime No.53 of 2023 of Gangavaram Police Station, ASR District registered against the petitioners/Accused No.1 and 7 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 30.12.2023 at about 12.10 PM the Inspector of Police along with staff and mediators while conducting vehicle checking at Nemalichettu center, Addateegala to Gangavaram Road, the police noticed one black colour Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle bearing No.AP 31 DM 0351 followed by Mahindra Tractor bearing No. APOS CP 7163, the police intercepted the vehicle, found 320 KGs of ganja and seized the contraband along with vehicles under the mediators’ report and registered an FIR. During the investigation, the accused Nos.2 to 6 were apprehended and remanded to judicial custody on 30.12.2023. Basing on the confession of Accused Nos.2 to 6, the police arrested Accused Nos.1 and 7 on 28.04.2025. 3. Mr. A.V.Pardhasaradhi, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and have been falsely implicated by the police.. It is further submitted that petitioner/Accused No.1 is permanent resident of East Godavari District and petitioner/Accused No.7 is permanent resident of West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh and undertake to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners were arrested on 28.04.2025 and since then they have been in the judicial custody for allegedly indulged in 320 Kgs of ganja transportation and possession and it is urged to enlarge the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 7 on bail. - 4. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that investigation is completed and charge sheet is yet to be filed. The ganja alleged to be involved in this case is commercial quantity, and urged to dismiss the bail application. - 4. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that investigation is completed and charge sheet is yet to be filed. The ganja alleged to be involved in this case is commercial quantity, and urged to dismiss the bail application. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that there are no adverse antecedents against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 7. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, Accused Nos.1 and 7 were arrested on 28.04.2025. Accused No.1 is the vehicle owner. There are altogether 14 cases registered against him. Out of them, 12 cases are relating to NDPS Act. The allegation of the prosecution is that the Accused No.1 is the ganja receiver. The alleged ganja indulged in this case is 320 Kgs. While accused Nos.2 to 6 were allegedly transporting ganja. They were caught hold by the Investigating agency. Later, Accused.os.2 to 6 were enlarged on bail. Based upon the confession of Accused Nos.2 to 6, the role of petitioners herein i.e. Accused Nos.1 and 7 came into light. Against accused Nos.2 to 6, charge sheet was filed in the year 2023. Except the confession of co-accused, no material is there to connect the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 7 to the crime. 7. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners neither found transporting of contraband, nor found in possession of contraband nor did they escape from the scene of offence. 8. In Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners at Para No. 155, it is held as under: “155. We answer the reference by stating: (i) That the officers who are invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional, statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act. and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act (ii) That a statement recorded under, section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act." 9. and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act (ii) That a statement recorded under, section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act." 9. In State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.,  At Para No. 10, held as under: * “10. It has been held in dear terms in Tofan Singh Vs.State of Tamil Nadu, 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 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (criminal) No. 1569 of 2021 under Section 67 of the NDPS 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 at the stage of trial. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the orders dated 16th September, 2019, 14th  January, 2020, 16th January, 2020, 19th December, 2019 and 20th January, 2020 passed, 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.’’ 10. While referring the aforementioned decision in Tofan Singh’s supra the Hon’ble Apex Court confirmed the order of granting of bail where the petitioner  was arrested based upon the confession statement of another accused. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P., AIRONLINE 2020 SC 96 the Hon’ble Apex Court confirmed the order of the High Court granting bail to the petitioner therein by relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tofun Singh, Prabhakar Tewari and Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta. 12. In the case at hand, there are no adverse antecedents reported against Accused No.7. Charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 and 7 is yet to be filed. 12. In the case at hand, there are no adverse antecedents reported against Accused No.7. Charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 and 7 is yet to be filed. Of course, it is only a formal charge sheet since the petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 and 7 have been absconding, the investigating Officer was constrained to file a separate charge sheet against Accused Nos.2 to 6 showing Accused Nos.1 and 7 absconding from the clutches of law. 13. In view of the aforesaid expressions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court finds that the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail with the following stringentconditions. i. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 7 shall be enlarged on bail subject to the execution of a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand-only), each with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rampachodavaram. ii. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 7 shall appear before the learned trial Court for each and every adjournment; ii. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 7 shall cooperate with the trial Court for speedy disposal of the case; - iv. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 7 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. v. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 7 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. vi. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 7 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. vii. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 7 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are allowed.