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 20th DAY OF MARCH 2024
Crl.Misc.No.2570/2024
Petitioner :
(accused)
Basudeb Mahakud,
S/o.Shymasundar Mahakud,
32 years, R/at.Kulikuda village,
Gichhapada PS and post, Kandhamal
district, Odisha 762 002.
(By Sri NAT, Adv.)
V/S.

Respondent :
State by Mahadevapura PS
(By Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
The present petition U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C., is filed by
the petitioner to enlarge him on bail, in Cr.No.210/2024 of
Mahadevapura PS, registered for the offence punishable
U/Sec.20(b) of NDPS Act.
2. The prevalent grounds urged seeking bail:н
2
That the petitioner is innocent and law abiding citizen.
He has not committed any offence much less the offence as
alleged. He has 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. The procedure contemplated under N.D.P.S. Act
not followed while recovery. The contraband seized is not
commercial quantity. The petitioner is permanent resident
of the address shown in the cause title. 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. Hence, sought to
grant bail.
3. The prosecution while opposing the bail petition
contended that the I.O has seized 6 Kgs., 500 grams of
ganja. There are sufficient material available against the
petitioner, and the said offences are punishable with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than 10 years which may extend to 20 years and shall also
be liable to fine. The investigation is pending. In the event
of his release he may tamper with the prosecution
3
CCHн33
Crl.Misc.No.2570/2024
witnesses. Incriminatory articles were seized from his
custody. He may involve himself in similar offences.
Investigating agency by complying the provisions prevailed
under the act has seized the contraband from the petitioner.
The petitioner herein would sell the drugs to the younger
generation which may ruin the career of younger generation.
With these specific pleas sought to reject the bail plea of the
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 The PSI, of Mahadevapura PS.,
Bangalore has presented the complaint before the SHO. The
gist of the allegation reads as here under:н
On 8.3.2024 at about 1.00 pm., when the complainant
was on patrolling duty they received information from an
informant that on 7.3.2024 at 4.00 pm., a person at come
near Iori College compound, Mahadevapura, Bangalore and
sold ganja to the public and that he would come on that
also to sell ganja.

He returned to the police station and
registered a case in Cr.No.210/2024 is registered against
unknown person for the offence punishable U/s.20(b) of
NDPS Act.

Thereafter, he has informed the matter to the
higher officer and obtained permission to conduct raid. He
has secured the panchas, he along with panchas and staff
went to the spot, the informant showed the suspect. They
apprehended him and on enquiry he has revealed his name
and address. When he was questioned about the contents
of the bag in his possession, he has stated that he is
carrying ganja. The said ganja was seized and on weighing
it came around 6 Kgs., 500
grams.

A detail mahazar is
5
CCHн33
Crl.Misc.No.2570/2024
drawn and incriminatory ganja is seized. The accused was
arrested, produced before the court and remanded to
judicial custody.
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 search
and seizure 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 6 Kgs., 500 grams of ganja
is seized from the petitioner. The offence punishable with
imprisonment upto 10 years and with fine. There are
primafacie material available against them.
10. On careful analysis of rival contentions and the
prosecution papers available on record, it is evident that on
8.3.2024 complainant has conducted raid and apprehended
accused. On looking to the seizure panchanama the drugs
6
seized from petitioner herein is weighing 6 Kgs., 500 grams
of ganja. 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.55 the narcotic
drugнganja 1000 grams is small quantity and 20 Kgs., is
commercial quantity. In this case the quantum of ganja
seized is 6 Kgs., 500 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.

7
CCHн33
Crl.Misc.No.2570/2024
11. Here in this case the drugs seized by the
investigating agency to the tune of 6 Kgs., 500 grams
of
ganja which is an intermediate quantity. When the quantity
is less than commercial quantity, rigors of Sec.37 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 the investigation is
concluded. The offence alleged against the petitioner is not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Further
custodial interrogation is not warranted. 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:
8
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.

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 20th day of March 2024)
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.

9
CCHн33
Crl.Misc.No.2570/2024