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 DECEMBER 2022
Crl. Misc.No.11334/2022
Petitioner :
(accused No.1)
Sri.Purushottama, S/o.Bala
Gangaiah, aged about 52 years
R/at Simhachalam Main Road,
1st Cross, Vishaka Pattana District,
Andhra Pradesh
(By Sri. Noor Pasha., Adv.)
V/S.
Respondent :
State by Parappana Agrahara 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.153/2022 of
Parappana Agrahara PS, registered for the offences punishable
U/Sec.8(c), 21(c), 22(c) of N.D.P.S. Act in Spl.C.C.2185/2022.
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. The procedure contemplated under N.D.P.S.
Act not followed while recovery. If he is detained in the Central
prison his career will be spoiled in the midst of the other
criminals in the prison.
The petitioner is permanent resident
of the address 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 1 Kg., 164 grams of hashish
oil which is a commercial quantity. There are sufficient
material available against the petitioner, and the said offences
are punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which
3
CCH33
Crl.Misc.11334/2022
shall not be less than 10 years which may extend to 20 years
and shall also be liable to fine. The investigation is pending.
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.
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?
4
6. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
7. POINT NO.1: The PSI of Parappana Agrahara PS., has
put the criminal law into motion.
The gist of the allegation
reads as here under:
On 3.05.2022, at 2.30 pm., when the the complainant
was in the station he received a credible information that some
persons alleged to have been peddling prohibited contraband
hashish oil at Electronic city 2 nd phase, near Phase 2 bus
stand,
Bangalore.
On
receiving
the
information
the
complainant police intimated the information to his higher
officer and arranged a raiding team and visited the spot and
mounted surveillance in the area. Two persons were found
suspicious.
He apprehended them and on personal search
they were found in possession of 1 Kg., 164 grams of hashish
oil.The contraband was seized and a detail mahazar was drawn
in the spot. Accused were arrested and a report is submitted
5
CCH33
Crl.Misc.11334/2022
before Station House Officer which is the basis to register the
case against the accused in Crime No.153/2022 for the
offences punishable under Sec.8(c), 21(c), 22(c) of NDPS Act.
The present petitioner is accused No.1 in the case.
8. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that petitioner is falsely implicated in the above 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 1 Kg., 164 grams of hashish oil under the
seizure panchanama. As per specification of small and
6
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 at
Sl.No.23 the narcotic drug – Hashish oil weighing 1 Kg., is a
commercial quantity. In the present case 1 Kg., 164 grams of
Hashish oil narcotic substance is seized which is a commercial
quantity.
At this stage, it is necessary for me to refer to the judgment of
Hon’ble
Apex
Court
in
Crl.
Appeal
No.1043/2021
dated
22.9.2021 in the case Union of India through NCB., Lucknow
Vs., Mohammed Nawaz Khan wherein the NCB., Lucknow has
challenged the order of grant of bail to the accused by the Hon’ble
High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench.
Hon’ble Apex Court
In the said case the
pleased to make a detail discussion on the
criteria to be considered for grant of bail when the accused is
prosecuted under the provisions of NDPS Act.
At para20 of the
judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court pleased to note that:
“the High Court and this court are required to apply while
granting bail is whether there are reasonable grounds to
CCH33
Crl.Misc.11334/2022
7
believe that the accused has not committed an offence and
whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Given the seriousness of offences punishable under the
NDPS Act and in order to curb the menace of drugtrafficking
in the country, stringent parameters for the grant of bail
under the NDPS Act have been prescribed. In the present
case, the High Court while granting bail to the respondent
adverted to two circumstances, namely (i) absence of
recovery of the contraband from the possession of the
respondent and (ii) the wrong name in the endorsement of
translation of the statement under Section 67 of the NDPS
Act.
As regards to the finding of Hon’ble High Court
regarding absence of recovery of the contraband from the
possession of the respondent, we note that in Union of India
v. Rattan Mallik, a twojudge Bench of this Court cancelled
the bail of an accused and reversed the finding of the High
Court, which had held that as the contraband (heroin) was
recovered from a specially made cavity above the cabin of a
truck, no contraband was found in the ‘possession’ of the
accused. The Court observed that merely making a finding
on the possession of the contraband did not fulfill the
parameters
of
Section
37(1)(b)
and
there
was
non
application of mind by the High Court. In line with the
decision of this Court in Rattan Mallik (supra), we are of the
view that a finding of the absence of possession of the
contraband on the person of the respondent by the High
Court in the impugned order does not absolve it of the level
8
of scrutiny required under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS
Act.”
11. Further in regard to non compliance of the procedure
laid U/s.42 of NDPS Act, it is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court
that it is a question of fact. Further, at Para30 the Hon’ble
Apex Court pleased to make the following essential elements
ought to have been considered by the Hon’ble High Court of
Lucknow.
(i) The respondent was traveling in the vehicle all the
way from Dimapur in Nagaland to Rampur in Uttar
Pradesh with the coaccused;
(ii) The complaint notes that the CDR analysis of the
mobile number used by the respondent indicates
that the respondent was in regular touch with the
other accused persons who were known to him;
(iii) The quantity of contraband found in the vehicle is of
a commercial quantity; and
(iv) The contraband was concealed in the vehicle in
which the respondent was traveling with the co
accused.
By making a detail observation in granting the bail to the
accused is incorrect and has set aside the impugned order.
CCH33
Crl.Misc.11334/2022
9
The aforesaid recent judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court clearly
highlights on the aspect that what are all the circumstances to
be considered and has to be evaluated by the court to consider
the bail plea of the accused.
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 approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is
indeed uncalled for.
Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of
MP
Vs.,
Kajad
reported
in
2001(7)SCC
673
while
10
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
11
CCH33
Crl.Misc.11334/2022
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. In this case, in all 221 grams of MDMA ecstasy
12
pills seized from the petitioner herein. At this stage, there is
primafacie material available against the petitioner in regard to
the possession of narcotic drug.
The learned counsel for
petitioner 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 6th day of December 2022]
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.
CN/*