IN THE COURT OF THE XXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE & SPL. JUDGE (NDPS), BENGALURU.
CCH.33.
PRESENT:
SMT. B.S. JAYASHREE, LL.M.,
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS),
BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 21st DAY OF MARCH 2024
Crl. Misc.No.2364/2024
Petitioners :
(accused No.1 & 2)
1. Akil Raj, S/o.Rajan, 24 years,
No.1/39, Munika Layout,
Lakshmi Nivas, Near Orion East
Mall, Banaswadi, Bengaluru 560
033.
2. Sooraj, S/o.Suresh, 29 years,
R/at.Reddies Enclave, Room
No.418, Kudalu Gate, Hosur
road, Bengaluru.
(By Sri. AVN., Adv.
V/S.

Respondent :
State by Indiranagar PS.
(By Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
The present petition U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the
petitioners to enlarge them on bail, in Cr.No.28/2024 of
2
Indiranagar PS., for the offences punishable U/Sec.22(c) of
N.D.P.S. Act
2. The prevalent grounds urged seeking bail:н
That the petitioners are innocent and law abiding
citizens. They have not committed any offence much less the
offence as alleged. They have been falsely implicated by the
respondent in this case. Though the alleged offence is non
bailable, but is neither punishable with imprisonment for life
or death sentence. They are no way involved in the crime. The
contraband seized from the accused persons is not commercial
quantity. They are permanent residents of the addresses stated
in the cause title.

They have no criminal antecedents.

The
petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any conditions
imposed by this court in the event of grant of bail. They are
ready to offer surety for their due appearance before this court.
Hence, sought to grant bail.
3. The prosecution while opposing the bail petition
contended that the I.O has seized 0.140 grams of LSD strips
CCHн33
Crl.Misc.No.2364/2024
3
and 11 grams of MDMA from accused persons. The offences
alleged against the petitioners are punishable with rigorous
imprisonment for a term upto 20 years and shall also be liable
to fine.

There is a primafacie case available against the
petitioners. They are habitual drug dealers. There is primafacie
case made out against petitioners. If the petitioners are
released on bail, they will continue the profession of narcotic
drug selling, and they may abscond and tamper evidence of the
prosecution.

Hence,
sought
to
reject
the
bail
plea
of
petitioners.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the
prosecution.

5. The points that arise for my consideration are as here
under:
1. Whether petitioners have made out
sufficient grounds to enlarge them on
bail?
2. What order?
6. My findings on the above points are as under:
4
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
7. POINT NO.1:н The PI., Indiranagar PS has put the
criminal law into motion. The gist of the allegation reads as
here under:н
On 13.2.2024 at about 4.00 pm., when the complainant
PSI was in the station he has received credible information
from an informant that near BDA complex compound, 17th
cross, Indiranagar, LIC compound three persons are selling
contraband article to the public illegally. On receipt of the said
information, he has informed the matter to ACP, obtained
permission to conduct raid. He has called the panchas.

He
along with panchas and staff had been to the spot at 5.30 pm.,
and mounted surveillance in the spot and found the three
suspected persons. He has send a decoy to the said persons.
The decoy has purchased contraband article from the suspects
and confirmed about the suspects possessing contraband.
They were surrounded and apprehended.

On enquiry they
CCHн33
Crl.Misc.No.2364/2024
5
have revealed their names and addresses. On further probing
they have revealed that they are in possession of contraband
LSD. On personal search he seized 0.140 LSD strips and 11
grams of MDMA from the accused under a detail mahazar.
Accused were arrested. A detail report is prepared submitted
before SHO. The said report is the basis to the register case is
against the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.28/2024 for the
offences
punishable
U/Sec.22(c)
of
N.D.P.S.

Act
The
petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 & 2 in the case.

8. On looking to the prosecution papers the
quantum of narcotic substance seized 0.140 LSD strips and 11
grams of MDMA. As per specification of small and commercial
quantity of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance issued by
Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification
S.O.1055(E) dated 19.10.2001 at Sl.No.134 the narcotic drug Ц
MDMA weighing 0.5 grams is small quantity and 10 grams is a
commercial quantity. In the present case 11 grams of MDMA
seized is commercial quantity. At Sl.No.133 the narcotic drug Ц
LSD weighing 0.002 grams is small quantity and 0.1 gram is a
6
commercial quantity. In the present case 0.140 grams of LSD
seized is commercial quantity.

Further more the petitioner
herein were apprehended with the contraband in the place of
incident. Their voluntary statement is recorded. Commercial
quantum of contraband is in their conscious possession.

9. The NDPS Act provides deterrent punishment for
various offences relating to illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs
and psychotropic substances. In the recent judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala Vs., Rajesh
in (2020) 12 SCC 122 it is observed that
Уreasonable groundsФ means something more than primafacie
grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing
that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The
reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence
of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to
justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged
offence. In the case on hand, the High Court seems to have
completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 that in
addition to the limitations provided under the CrPC, or any other
law for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its
liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed
uncalled for.

7
CCHн33
Crl.Misc.No.2364/2024
In the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Crl.Appeal
No.1043/2021 dated 22.9.2021 in the case Union of India
through NCB., Lucknow Vs., Mohammed Nawaz Khan
wherein the NCB., Lucknow has challenged the order of grant
of bail to the accused by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench.

In the said case the Hon’ble Apex Court
pleased to make a detail discussion on the criteria to be
considered for grant of bail when the accused is prosecuted
under the provisions of NDPS Act. At paraн20 of the judgment
the Hon’ble Apex Court pleased to note that:н
the High Court and this court are required to apply while
granting bail is whether there are reasonable grounds to
believe that the accused has not committed an offence and
whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Given the seriousness of offences punishable under the
NDPS Act and in order to curb the menace of drugн
trafficking in the country, stringent parameters for the
grant of bail under the NDPS Act have been prescribed. In
the present case, the High Court while granting bail to the
respondent adverted to two circumstances, namely (i)
absence of recovery of the contraband from the possession
of the respondent and (ii) the wrong name in the
endorsement of translation of the statement under Section
67 of the NDPS Act. As regards to the finding of Hon’ble
High Court regarding absence of recovery of the
contraband from the possession of the respondent, we
note that in Union of India v. Rattan Mallik, a twoнjudge
Bench of this Court cancelled the bail of an accused and
reversed the finding of the High Court, which had held
that as the contraband (heroin) was recovered from a
8
specially made cavity above the cabin of a truck, no
contraband was found in the СpossessionТ of the accused.
The Court observed that merely making a finding on the
possession of the contraband did not fulfill the parameters
of Section 37(1)(b) and there was nonнapplication of mind
by the High Court. In line with the decision of this Court in
Rattan Mallik (supra), we are of the view that a finding of
the absence of possession of the contraband on the person
of the respondent by the High Court in the impugned order
does not absolve it of the level of scrutiny required under
Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.

Further in regard to non compliance of the procedure laid
U/s.42 of NDPS Act, it is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that
it is a question of fact. Further, at Paraн30 the Hon’ble Apex
Court pleased to make the following essential elements ought
to have been considered by the Hon’ble High Court of
Lucknow.
(i) The respondent was traveling in the vehicle all the way
from Dimapur in Nagaland to Rampur in Uttar Pradesh
with the coнaccused;
(ii) The complaint notes that the CDR analysis of the mobile
number used by the respondent indicates that the
respondent was in regular touch with the other accused
persons who were known to him;
(iii) The quantity of contraband found in the vehicle is of a
commercial quantity; and
(iv) The contraband was concealed in the vehicle in which
the respondent was traveling with the coнaccused.

By making a detail observation in granting the bail to the
accused is incorrect and has set aside the impugned order.

CCHн33
Crl.Misc.No.2364/2024
9
The aforesaid recent judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court clearly
highlights on the aspect that what are all the circumstances to
be considered and has to be evaluated by the court to consider
the bail plea of the accused. As per the enunciation of law in
the afore said dictums’ it is clear that no person shall be
granted bail unless the two conditions are satisfied, i.e., the
satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the petitioners are not guilty and that they are
not likely to commit any offence while on bail. In this case
0.140 LSD strips and 11 grams of MDMA seized from the
conscious possession of the petitioners herein and other
accused. The total recovery of contraband MDMA and LSD in
the case is commercial quantity. At this stage, there is
primafacie material available against the petitioners in regard
to
possessing
the
contraband
at
the
time
of
their
apprehension. The learned counsel for petitioners has failed to
place any material before this court that they were not doing
the trade of contraband at the time of their apprehension and
search.

In the result, I proceed to hold that the petitioners
10
herein have not made out any grounds to entertain their plea
for bail. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative.

10. Point No.2:н In the result, I proceed to pass following:
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioners U/Sec.439
of Cr.P.C is hereby rejected.
[Dictated to the stenographer, directly on the computer, typed and
computerised by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in
Open Court on this the 21st day of March 2024)
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.