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 23 rd DAY OF JUNE 2022
Crl.Misc.No.6022/2022
Petitioner :
(accused No.1)
Chelaram, aged about 43 years, S/o
Kanaramji, R/at No.1, 1st cross,
Muddinapalya, Near
Neelakanteshwara Temple,
Vishwaneedam Post, Bengaluru,
Also at 1145/8, 4th B Main road,
Back Sri Sarvajna High School, MC
Layout, Govindaraj
Nagar,Vijayanagar, Bengaluru-40
(By Sri K.AK., Adv.)
V/S.

Respondent :
State by Malleshwaram Police
(By Public Prosecutor)
OR D E R
The present petition U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the
petitioner to enlarge him on bail, in Cr.No.79/2022 of
2
Malleshwaram PS., registered for the offence punishable
U/Sec.18(b) of N.D.P.S. Act.

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. The mandatory provisions U/s.50 of NDPS
Act has not been complied. 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 seized 700 grams of opium from the
possession of the accused.

The accused is found to be in
possession of narcotic substance. A detailed mahazar is drawn
3
in the spot.

CCH-33
Crl.Misc.No.6022/2022
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:
REASONS
4
7. POINT NO.1:- A report submitted by PI., who is the
complainant in this case before the SHO, Malleshwaram PS.
The contents of the report is here under:On
29.05.2022,
at
about
11.00
am.,
when
the
complainant was on patrolling duty, he has received credible
information that a person is selling opium to the public near
Malleshwaram 18th cross play ground. On receipt of the
information he has informed to his higher officer, obtained
permission and thereafter, he along with his staff and panchas
has been to the spot and found the suspected person. He and
his staff surrounded and apprehended him.

On personal
search they seized 700 grams of opium from the accused. A
detail
seizure panchanama was drawn.

Thereafter, he has
prepared a detail report and submitted before the SHO, which
is the basis to register the case against the accused in
Cr.No.79/2022 for the offence punishable U/s.18(b) of NDPS
Act.

8. It is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that
he is planted in the case by the complainant police he is
5
CCH-33
Crl.Misc.No.6022/2022
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 resident 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. The prosecution opposed the bail plea on the ground
that the offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable
upto 10 years.

In the event of grant of bail he is going to
abscond and may hamper investigation.

10.

On careful analysis of rival contentions and the
prosecution papers available on record the investigating
agency seized 700 grams of opium under the seizure
panchanama.

The petitioner is in judicial custody since the
date of his arrest i.e., from 29.05.2022.

On looking to the
seizure panchanama the drugs seized is weighing 700 grams of
opium. As per specification of small and commercial quantity
of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance issued by Ministry
6
of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E)
dated 19.10.2001 at Sl.No.92 the narcotic drugнopium 25
grams is small quantity and 2.5 Kgs., is commercial quantity.
Opium seized is 700 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 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 700 grams of opium which
CCH-33
Crl.Misc.No.6022/2022
7
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. The accused herein is not having
previous criminal antecedents. He is not an habitual offender.
The major portion of investigation in the case is concluded as
the incriminatory article is already seized. 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.

12. Point No.2:- In the result, I proceed to pass following:
ORDER
8
The Petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.439
of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed.
The petitioner is enlarged on bail on executing
personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- 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 co-operate
investigation.

with
I.O
for
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 dates
of hearing.

9
CCH-33
Crl.Misc.No.6022/2022
8. 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 23rd day of June 2022]
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.
CN/*