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 26th DAY OF AUGUST 2022
Crl. Misc.No.8201/2022
Petitioner :
(accused.2)
Pramod.R, S/o.Ravikumar,
Aged about 23 years, R/at No.681,
1st Main Road, Vijayananda Nagar,
Nandini Layout, Bengaluru560 096
(By Sri BLJ, Adv.)
V/S.
Respondent :
State by Byadarahalli Police Station
(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.381/2022 of
Byadarahalli
PS., registered for the offences punishable
U/Sec.20(b), 8(c), 22(c), 23(c) of N.D.P.S. Act .
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.
Though the alleged offence is non
bailable, but is neither punishable with imprisonment for life
or death sentence. There is no connection or active part played
by this petitioner. The procedure contemplated under N.D.P.S.
Act not followed while recovery. Petitioner is permanent
resident in the address as 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 52 Grams of MDMA & 1 Kg
50 Gram of Ganja from the accused persons. The contraband
seized is a commercial quantity. There are sufficient materials
available against the petitioner and the said offences are
3
CCH33
Crl.Misc.8201/2022
punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall
extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine.
investigation is pending.
The
In the event of his release he may
tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Incriminatory articles
were seized from his custody.
similar offences.
He may involve himself in
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 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
bail?
2. What order?
6. My findings on the above points are as under:
4
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
7. POINT NO.1: The PSI, Byadarahalli P.S., Bangalore
has put the criminal law into motion. The gist of the allegation
reads as here under:
On 9.8.2022 at 15.30 hours when the complainant was
in the police station he has received credible information that
some unknown persons are selling ganja and MDMA near
BBMP park, Dwarakavasa road, BEL I Stage, Bharathnagar,
Bengaluru. After receipt of the information he has informed to
his superior and obtained permission to conduct raid. He
along with his staff, panchas and investigation tools had been
to the spot at about 16.30 hours and saw the suspected
persons.
He along with his staff apprehended them and on
enquiry, they revealed their names and addresses.
On
personal search they seized 52 Grams of MDMA & 1 Kg 50
Gram of Ganja. A detailed mahazar is drawn. He has arrested
the accused No.1 and 2, prepared a detailed report which is
5
CCH33
Crl.Misc.8201/2022
the basis to register the case against them in Crime
No.381/2022 for the offences punishable u/Sec.20(b), 8(c),
22(c), 23(c) of NDPS Act. The accused were produced before
court and were remanded to judicial custody.
The accused
No.2 is the present petitioner.
8. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that petitioner is falsely implicated in the case. The
quantity seized from the possession of the accused is less than
commercial quantity. The major portion of investigation is
concluded.
Custodial interrogation is not warranted.
He is
entitled for bail.
9. It is argued by the prosecution that the petitioner has
committed heinous offence and the drugs were seized from his
custody. There are primafacie material available against him.
10.
On careful analysis of rival contentions and the
prosecution papers available on record, the investigating
agency seized 52 grams M.D.M.A and 1 Kg., 50 grams of ganja.
As per specification of small and commercial quantity of
narcotic drug or psychotropic substance issued by Ministry of
6
Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E) dated
19.10.2001 Sl.No.134 the narcotic drug MDMA weighing 10
grams is a commercial quantity. In the present case the MDMA
weighing 52 grams seized is a commercial quantity. From the
conscious possession of A1 and 2, 52 Grams of MDMA & 1
Kg., 50 Gram of Ganja was seized.
11. The NDPS Act provides deterrent punishment for
various offences relating to illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs
and psychotropic substances. In the recent judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of State of Kerala Vs.,
Rajesh in (2020) 12 SCC 122 it is observed that
“reasonable grounds” means something more than prima
facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes
for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged
offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision
requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are
sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the
accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case on
hand, the High Court seems to have completely overlooked
the underlying object of Section 37 that in addition to the
limitations provided under the CrPC, or any other law for
the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberal
7
CCH33
Crl.Misc.8201/2022
approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed
uncalled for.
Further in the judgment Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of State of MP Vs., Kajad reported in 2001(7)SCC 673 while
considering an appeal against an order of the High Court
allowing the second bail petition of the respondent who was
petitioner under the NDPS Act has held that :
“5. ………….. 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 regulating the grant
of bail. Liberal approach in the matter of bail under the Act is
uncalled for.”
In the dictum of Babua Vs., state of Orissa reported in
2001(2)SCC 566 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that:
“3. In view of Section 37(1)(b) of the Act unless there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not
guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail alone will entitle him to a bail. In the
present case, the petitioner attempted to secure bail on
various grounds but failed. But those reasons would be
8
insignificant if we bear in mind the scope of Section 37(1)(b) of
the Act. At this stage of the case all that could be seen is
whether the statements made on behalf of the prosecution
witnesses, if believable, would result in conviction of the
petitioner or not. At this juncture, we cannot say that the
petitioner is not guilty of the offence if the allegations made in
the charge are established. Nor can we say that the evidence
having not been completely adduced before the Court that
there are no grounds to hold that he is not guilty of such
offence. The other aspect to be borne in mind is that the
liberty of a citizen has got to be balanced with the interest of
the society. In cases where narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances are involved, the petitioner would indulge in
activities which are lethal to the society. Therefore, it would
certainly be in the interest of the society to keep such persons
behind bars during the pendency of the proceedings before
the court, and the validity of Section 37(1)(b) having been
upheld, we cannot take any other view.”
As per the enunciation of law in the afore said dictums’ it is
clear that no person shall be granted bail unless the two
conditions are satisfied, i.e., the satisfaction of the court that
there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner
is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail. Here in the present case prosecution has seized
52 grams M.D.M.A and 1 Kg., 50 grams of ganja. The quantity
of contraband is commercial quantity. At this stage, there is
primafacie material available against the petitioner in regard to
the possession of narcotic drug. Learned counsel for petitioner
CCH33
Crl.Misc.8201/2022
9
has failed to place any material before this court that he was
not in possession of NDPS article at the time of his
apprehension and search. In the result, I proceed to hold that
the petitioner herein has not made out any grounds to
entertain his plea for bail. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in
the negative.
12. 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 rejected.
[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 26th day of August, 2022]
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.
CN/*