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 2nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
Crl.Misc.No.8346/2022
Petitioner :
(accused No.1)
Jameer Pasha, S/o.late Abdul Azeez,
30 years, 2nd cross, Yarabnagar,
Ramanagara Town, Ramanagara
District.
(By Sri ST., Adv.)
V/S.

Respondent :
State by Bangalore City Railway 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.196/2015 of
Bangalore City Railway PS., for the offences punishable
U/Sec.20(b) & 22 of N.D.P.S. Act.

2
2. The grounds urged by the petitioner for grant of bail
are as under:
That the petitioner is absolutely innocent of the alleged
offences and have got valid and tenable defense. During crime
stage on 5.10.2015 petitioner was enlarged on bail and he was
asked to appear before the court after final report.

On
27.10.2018 complainant has submitted charge sheet in
Spl.C.C.776/2018 but no notice and summons were served on
him and due to his absence he was once again arrested and
remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, he was enlarged on
bail in Crl.Misc.1486/2020 on 21.3.2020. subsequently, due
to lock down and SOP petitioner remained absent and he lost
the track of the case as such he did not appear before the
court on the hearing dates. Again NBW was issued and he was
arrested and produced before the court and remanded to
judicial custody. 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.

CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No.8346/2022
3
3. The objection raised by the prosecution is that the
investigating agency has in all seized 1 Kg., 100 grams of ganja
from the possession of the accused. The accused is found to be
in possession of narcotic substance. 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:
4
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
7. POINT NO.1:­ A report submitted by PSI, ., who is the
complainant in this case before the Bangalore city Railway PS.
The contents of the report is as here under:­
On 6.9.2015 at about 6.45 pm., when the complainant
along with his staff were on patrolling duty deployed for solving
theft cases and when they reached auto stand in the railway
station saw a person moving in a suspicious manner with a
bag. He has apprehended the said person and on enquiry he
has revealed his name and address. He has further revealed
that the bag contained ganja soppu. On search of the bag they
found 1 Kg., 100 grams of ganja. They seized the same under
seizure panchanama. A detail report was prepared and
submitted before SHO. Basing on the report, a case in
Cr.196/2015
is
registered
U/s.20(b), 22 of NDPS Act.

for
the
offences
punishable
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No.8346/2022
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 1 Kg., 100 grams of
seized from the petitioner and other accused.

ganja
is
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
6.9.2015 complainant seized 1 Kg., 100 grams of ganja and
apprehended the accused.

As per specification of small and
commercial
narcotic
quantity
of
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 drug­ganja 1000 grams is small quantity and 20
Kgs., is commercial quantity.

In this case the quantum of
ganja seized is 1 Kg., 100 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 – Bail – grant of – non commercial quantity –
quantity involved being only 14 Kgs., of ganja, which is a
non commercial quantity appellant accused not involved in
any other case – in above circumstances, held, appellant
should be released on bail, pending trial – 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.

CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No.8346/2022
7
11. Here in this case the drugs seized by the investigating
agency to the tune of 1 Kg., 100 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 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.
custodial
interrogation
is
not
warranted.

As
Further
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.

8
13. Point No.2:­
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 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
co­operate
investigation.

5.

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

6.

He shall furnish his photo ID proof and
photo ID proof of his sureties.

7.

He shall appear before the court on all
hearing dates.

with
I.O
for
9
8.

CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No.8346/2022
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 2nd day of September 2022)
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.
CN/*