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 3rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
Crl.Misc.No.8578/2022
Petitioner :
(accused No.3)
Asran ahmed, s/o.Nayaz Ahmed, 24
years, R/at.No.9667, 5th Cross,
Govindpura Main road, Bangalore
560 045.
(By Sri MPC., Adv.)
V/S.

Respondent :
State by SHO, Vijayanagar PS
Bengaluru
(By Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
The present petition is filed by the petitioner U/s.439
of Cr.P.C., to enlarge him on bail, in Cr.No.96/2022 of
Vijayanagar PS., registered for the offences punishable
U/Sec.8(c) & 20(b) & 22(b) of NDPS Act.

2
2. The grounds urged by the petitioner for grant of bail
are as under:
That the petitioner is very innocent and law abiding
citizen. He has not committed any offence much less the
offence as alleged.

He has no knowledge of alleged crime
and falsely implanted at the instance of extraneous
elements. The mandatory provisions of NDPS Act has not
been complied. There are no eye witnesses who speak about
the sale of alleged contraband. Though the alleged offence
is
non
bailable,
but
is
neither
punishable
with
imprisonment for life or death sentence. The petitioner is
ready and willing to abide by any conditions imposed by this
court in the event of grant of bail. He is ready to offer surety
for his due appearance before this court. He has no bad
antecedents.

He is the sole bread earner of his family.

Hence, sought to grant bail.

3. The objection raised by the prosecution is that the
investigating agency has in all seized 5 grams of MDMA and
3 Kgs., 750 grams of ganja from the possession of the
accused.

The accused is found to be in possession of
3
narcotic substance.

CCHн33
Crl.Misc.No.8578/2022
A detailed mahazar is drawn in the
spot. Personal search is conducted. The offence alleged
against
the
petitioner
is
punishable
with
rigorous
imprisonment for a term which shall extend upto 10 years.
There is a primafacie case available against the petitioner.
He is an habitual drug dealer.

In the event of grant of bail,
he would abscond and may hamper the investigation.
Hence, sought to reject the bail plea of petitioner.

4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the
records.
5. The points that arise for my consideration are as
here under:
1. Whether petitioner has made out
sufficient grounds to enlarge him on
bail?
2. What order?
6. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: As per the final order for the following:
4
REASONS
7. POINT NO.1:н A report submitted by PSI, ., who is
the complainant in this case before the Vijayanagar PS. The
contents of the report is as here under:н
On
19.8.2022
at
about
10.00
am.,
when
the
complainant was on patrolling duty he has received credible
information from an informer that 4 persons will come
beside Vijayanagar club road, near govt., first grade college
to sell ganja to the public.

He has informed the Higher
Officer and obtained permission to conduct raid. He went to
the
spot
and
saw
the
suspected
persons.

He
has
apprehended them and on enquiry and during personal
search he has seized 05 grams of MDMA and 3 Kgs., 750
grams of ganja.

Thereafter, a detail seizure panchanama
was drawn. A detail report was prepared and submitted
before SHO which is the basis to register the case against
the accused in Cr.96/2022 for the offence punishable
U/s.8(c), 20(b) & 22(b) of NDPS Act. Thereafter accused was
arrested and produced before jurisdictional Magistrate and
remanded to judicial custody.

CCHн33
Crl.Misc.No.8578/2022
5
8. It is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner
that he is planted in the case by the complainant police he
is unaware of seized drug. The seized article is not
commercial quantity. The mandatory provisions of Sec.41,
42, 50, 52 and 47 of the Act are not complied.

He is
permanent residents of the address given in the cause title.
In the event of grant of bail he is ready to abide by the
conditions which are being imposed by this court.
9. It is argued by the prosecution that the petitioner
has committed heinous offence, the IO has seized 05 grams
of MDMA and 3 Kgs., 750 grams of ganja from the petitioner
and
other
accused.

The
offence
punishable
imprisonment upto 10 years and with fine.

with
There are
primaнfacie material available against them.
10. On careful analysis of rival contentions and the
prosecution papers available on record, it is evident that on
19.8.2022
apprehended
complainant
accused.

has
On
conducted
looking
to
raid
the
and
seizure
panchanama the drugs seized from accused is weighing 05
grams of MDMA and 3 Kgs., 750 grams of ganja. As per
specification of small and commercial quantity of narcotic
6
drug or psychotropic substance issued by Ministry of
Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E)
dated 19.10.2001 at Sl.No.55 the narcotic drugнganja 1000
grams is small quantity and 20 Kgs., is commercial
quantity. In this case the quantum of ganja seized is 3750
grams of ganja
is an intermediate quantity.

Likewise at
Sl.No.134 Ц narcotic drug MDMA 0.5 grams is small
quantity and 10 grams is commercial quantity.

In the
present case quantum of MDMA seized is 5 grams which is
an intermediate quantity.

As per the decision of Hon’ble
Apex Court reported in 2018 11 SCC 488 Birbal Prasad
Vs., State of Bihar wherein it is held that:
Ss.37 and 20 Ц Bail Ц grant of Ц non commercial quantity
Ц quantity involved being only 14 Kgs., of ganja, which is
a non commercial quantity appellant accused not involved
in any other case Ц in above circumstances, held,
appellant should be released on bail, pending trial Ц
hence, directions issued to release appellant on bail, on
certain conditions.

The said case law aptly applies to the case on hand in
holding that the contraband seized in the case on hand is
intermediate quantity and it is not commercial quantity. In
7
CCHн33
Crl.Misc.No.8578/2022
the said circumstances, as per the observations of Hon’ble
Apex Court the bail plea of accused to be considered.
11. Here in this case the drugs seized by the
investigating agency to the tune of 05 grams of MDMA and 3
Kgs., 750 grams of ganja which are intermediate quantity.
When the quantity is less than commercial quantity, rigors
of Sec.20(b) of the NDPS Act will not attract, and factors
become similar to bail petitions under regular statues
normal, unless the prosecution points towards exceptional
circumstances.
12. The major portion of investigation in the case is
concluded as the incriminatory article is already seized from
accused.

The offence alleged against the petitioner is not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Further
custodial interrogation is not warranted. His Voluntary
statement is already recorded.

As per the information
provided by the petitioner he is permanently residing in the
address shown in the cause title. The apprehension of the
prosecution that he may abscond and may protract the trial
could be compensated by imposing stringent conditions. In
8
the result, I answer the point for consideration in the
affirmative.

13. Point No.2:н
In the result, I proceed to pass
following:
ORDER
The Petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.439
of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed.
The
petitioner
executing
personal
is
enlarged
bond
for
on
a
bail
on
sum
of
Rs.1,00,000/н with two sureties for the like sum
with following conditions.
1.

The petitioner shall give attendance before
the concerned I.O., once in a month i.e.,
preferably on first Monday of every month in
between 10.00 am., to 2.00 pm., till filing of
charge sheet or further orders whichever is
earlier.

2.

He shall not leave the jurisdiction of this
court without prior permission.

3.

He shall not tamper the witness or abscond.

4.

He
shall
coнoperate
investigation.

5.

He shall not commit similar offence or
any offence while on bail.

6.

He shall furnish his photo ID proof and
local address proof document before the
court and photo ID proof of his sureties.

7.

He shall appear before the court on all
hearing dates.

with
I.O
for
9
8.

CCHн33
Crl.Misc.No.8578/2022
Breach of any of the conditions by the
petitioner would entail cancellation of bail.

[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 3rd day of September 2022)
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.