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 8th DAY OF September 2022
Crl.Misc.No.8683/2022
Petitioner :
(accused No.1)
Azam Pasha, S/o.Ahmed Jaan, 41
years, C/o.Fancies, S/o.Palraj
No.197, Munimarappa block,
Doddannanagar, 3rd Cross,
Devarachikkanahalli Arabic college,
Bangalore 560 045.
(By Sri.HSI., Adv.)
V/S.

Respondent :
State by Inspector of Excise,
Munireddy Palya range,
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.08/2022н23 of
Munireddy Palya PS., registered for the offence punishable
U/Sec.8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 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 U/s.20(b) 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 2 Kgs., 350 grams of
ganja from the possession of the accused. The accused is
found to be in possession of narcotic substance. A detailed
3
CCHн33
Crl.Misc.No.8683/2022
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 Inspector of
Excise, Munireddypalya Range who is the complainant in
this case. The contents of the report is as here under:н
On
22.08.2022
at
about
4.10
pm.,
when
the
complainant was on patrolling duty he has received credible
information from an informer that one person is selling
ganja in a petty shop bearing No.211/3, SA Naz Tailor,
Opposite Fathima clinic, 4th Cross, Rahamathnagar, near RT
Nagar main road, Bengaluru. He has informed the Higher
Officer and obtained permission to conduct raid. He went to
the spot and conducted raid on the said shop.
apprehended one person.

On search he found ganja
concealed under a kaki bundle.
was 2 Kgs., 350 grams.

He has
On weighing the same it
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.8/2022 for the offence punishable
U/s.8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 of NDPS Act.

Thereafter accused
was arrested and produced before jurisdictional Magistrate
and remanded to judicial custody.

CCHн33
Crl.Misc.No.8683/2022
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 2 Kgs., 350 grams of ganja
is seized from the petitioner and other accused. The offence
punishable with imprisonment upto 10 years and with fine.
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
22.08.2022
apprehended
complainant
accused.

has
On
conducted
looking
to
raid
the
and
seizure
panchanama the drugs seized from accused is weighing 2
Kgs., 350 grams of ganja. As per specification of small and
commercial quantity of narcotic drug or psychotropic
6
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 2 Kgs., 350 grams of ganja
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
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
2 Kgs., 350 grams of
ganja which is an intermediate quantity. When the quantity
CCHн33
Crl.Misc.No.8683/2022
7
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
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.

8
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.

8.

Breach of any of the conditions by the
petitioner would entail cancellation of bail.

with
I.O
for
[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 8th day of September 2022)
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.