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 22nd DAY OF August 2022
Crl.Misc.No.7999/2022
Petitioner :
(accused No.1)
Pradeep, S/o Ramaegowda, Aged
about 27 years, R/at No. 29,1st
Main, 1st Cross,
Basaveshwaranagara, Bangalore.
Native of Elekre Village,
Chennapattanna,
Ramanagara
(By Sri VK., Adv.)
V/S.

Respondent :
State by SHO, Rajagopalnagara PS
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.283/2022 of
Rajagopala Nagara PS of U/Sec 20(b) of NDPS Act.
2. The grounds urged by the petitioner for grant of bail
are as under:
2
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 1 Kg., 200 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
3
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No 7999/2022
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
7. POINT NO.1:­ A report submitted by PSI, ., who is
the complainant in this case before the Rajagopalanagar PS.
The contents of the report is as here under:­
4
On 4.8.2022 at about 4.00 pm., when the complainant
was in the station he has received credible information from
an informer that in a vacant place situated at Kodava
Samaj, IP Nagar, Bangalore a person is selling ganja to the
customers. He has informed the Higher Officer and obtained
permission to conduct raid.

He along with his staff and
panchas went to the spot and saw the suspected person.
He has apprehended him and on enquiry and during
personal search he has seized 1200 grams of ganja.
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.283/2022 for the offence punishable U/s.20(B) of NDPS
Act. Thereafter accused was arrested and produced before
jurisdictional Magistrate 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 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.

CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No 7999/2022
5
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 1200 grams of
ganja
is
seized from the petitioner and other accused. 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
4.08.2022
apprehended
complainant
accused.

has
On
conducted
looking
to
raid
the
and
seizure
panchanama the drugs seized from accused is weighing
1200 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 drug­ganja 1000 grams is small
quantity and 20 Kgs., is commercial quantity. In this case
the quantum of ganja seized is 1200 grams of ganja is an
intermediate quantity. As per the decision of Hon’ble Apex
6
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.
11. Here in this case the drugs seized by the
investigating agency to the tune of 1200 grams of ganja
which is an intermediate quantity. When the quantity 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
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No 7999/2022
7
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:­
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
executing
personal
is
enlarged
bond
for
on
a
bail
on
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.

8
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
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 22nd August 2022)
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.