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 6th DAY OF JANUARY 2023
Crl. Misc.No.10968/2022
Petitioner :
(accused No.1)
Gokul Krishna, S/o.Radhakrishnan,
a/a 23 years, R/at Gokulnivas,
Prakkanam PO, Chenneerkara,
Pathinamthitta, Kerala­689643
(By Sri.K.V.Laveen Poovaiah. Adv.)
V/S.

Respondent :
State by Electronic City Police
(By Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
This is the 2nd interim bail petition U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.,
filed
by
the
petitioner
to
enlarge
him
on
bail
in
in
Cr.No.232/2021 of Electronic City., registered for the offences
punishable U/Sec. 8(c), 20(B) (ii) and 22(c) of N.D.P.S. Act, as
he has to attend the wedding of his sister.

2
2. The prevalent grounds urged seeking bail:­
That the petitioner is very 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.

The FSL Report filed by the
complainant police, the test results of MDMA in Article No.3
which was sample from the 205 grams of MDMA seized, has
shown to be positive for Sodium Hydroxide, which is a drain
cleaner, meaning the contraband is not a narcotic substance.
The petitioner’s father is an aged person along with that he is
mentally abnormal and also a heart patient.

Now, his health
condition is deteriorated and further in need of treatment and
also assistance during the treatment is necessary. Petitioner’s
sister is married and moved to her husband’s house and his
mother is old and illiterate hence, petitioner is the only person
to assist his father.

He is ready to offer surety for his due
appearance before this court for the purpose of trial. Hence,
he has sought interim bail.

CCH­33
Crl.Misc.10968/2022
3
3. The prosecution while opposing the bail petition
contended that the I.O has seized 320 grams M.D.M.A
and
155 Grams of Charas, 2 Kg., 600 grams of Ganja from the
accused persons. The MDMA seized is a commercial quantity.
There are sufficient materials 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 completed and charge sheet has been filed.
In the event of his release he may tamper with the prosecution
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. Hence,
sought to reject the bail application.

4
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
prosecution.
5. The points that arise for my consideration are as here
under:
1. Whether petitioner has made out
sufficient grounds to enlarge him on
interim 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
7. POINT NO.1:­ The SI, Electronic City., Bangalore has
put the criminal law into motion.

The gist of the allegation
reads as here under:­
On 28.11.2021 between 1.30 pm., when the complainant
was in the police station has received credible information that
4 persons are in possession of MDMA ecstasy pills, charas and
ganja and selling the same to public and IT BT employees at
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.10968/2022
5
No.206,
Chikkathoguru
Basavapura, Bengaluru.

main
road,
Pragathinagar,
After receipt of the information he
informed to his superior and obtained permission to conduct
raid in the said house and apprehended two persons.

On
enquiry he revealed his name and address. They conducted
the personal search of the accused and seized 320 grams of
MDMA, 155 grams of charas balls and 2 kg., 600 grams of
ganja.

Samples were taken for forensic examination.

A
detailed report is submitted to SHO, Electronic City PS which
is the basis to register the case against the accused persons
and petitioner herein in Cr.No.232/2021 for the offences
punishable U/Sec. 8(c), 20(ii)(b) and 22(c) of N.D.P.S. Act. The
investigating agency on conclusion of investigation filed charge
sheet against accused No.1 to 5.
8. The learned counsel for petitioner has presented the
bail application to enlarge the petitioner on bail. He has also
filed interim bail application seeking grant of interim bail as
his father is mentally abnormal and also a heart patient.
Now, his health condition is deteriorated and further in need of
treatment and also assistance during the treatment is
6
necessary.

Petitioner’s sister is married and moved to her
husband’s house and his mother is old and illiterate hence,
petitioner is the only person to assist his father. The presence
of petitioner is required to take care of his father as he is the
only son. A detail medical report of his father is produced.

9.

In the present case, the contraband seized at the
instance of present petitioner is commercial quantity of MDMA.
In case of commercial quantity of contraband, rigors of Sec.37
of NDPS Act would apply. Negation of bail is the rule and its
grant an exception under sub­clause (ii) of clause (b) of Section
37(1). For granting the bail the court must, on the basis of the
record
produced
before
it,
be
satisfied
that
there
are
reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not
guilty of the offences with which he is charged and further that
he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It has
further to be noticed that the conditions for granting the bail,
specified in clause (b) of sub­section (1) of Section 37 are in
addition to the limitations provided under the Code of Criminal
Procedure or any other law for the time being in force
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.10968/2022
7
regulating the grant of bail. Liberal approach in the matter of
bail under the Act is uncalled for.

On merits at this stage
petitioner is not entitled for bail.
10. However, on looking to the serious illness of father of
petitioner and on perusing the medical records available on
record I am of the opinion that if an order of interim bail is
granted in favour of petitioner for a period of 90 days it would
suffice the ends of justice. Further it is directed that he shall
surrender before this court within 90 days from the date of his
release.

With these observation, I answer the point for
consideration in the affirmative.

11. Point No.2:­ In the result, I proceed to pass following:
ORDER
The interim application filed U/s.439 of Cr.P.C.,
filed by the petitioner seeking interim bail to look
after his ailing father is hereby allowed.
The petitioner is released on interim bail for a
period of 90 days from the date of his release with
the following conditions:­
8
1.

Petitioner shall execute personal bond
for a sum of Rs.1 lakh with one surety
for the likesum.

2. He shall surrender before this court
before expiry of 90 days from the date of
his release.
3.

He shall not tamper the witness or
abscond.

4. He shall not commit similar offence or
any offence while on 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 6th day of January 2023]
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.
CN/*