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 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
Crl.Misc.No.8384/2022
Petitioner :
(accused No.3)
Ranjith Kumar, S/o.Lakshmi Prasad,
30 years, R/at.Near St Mary School.
Next to Basava temple, Chinnaswamy
Layout, BG road, Basavanapura,
Bengaluru 560 070.
(By Sri ACS., 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.210/2022 of
Parappana Agrahara PS., registered for the offence punishable
U/Sec.8(c), 21(B), 22(B) of NDPS Act and Sec. 424 of IPC with
Sec. 42 Prison Act.
2
2. The grounds urged by the petitioner for grant of bail
are as under:
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.50 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 200 grams of Hashish
from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is found
to be in possession of narcotic substance. A detailed mahazar
3
is drawn in the spot.
CCH33
Crl.Misc.No.8384/2022
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:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: As per the final order for the following:
4
REASONS
7.
POINT
NO.1:
A
report
submitted
by
Chief
Superintend Central Prison., who is the complainant in this
case before the Parappana Agrahara PS. The contents of the
report is as here under:
On 13.06.2022 at about 1:00 PM, when the complainant
was in the station he has received credible information that
one Parveen Taj had gone to the Central prison to meet her son
Md. Bilal. Along with her she had taken clothes to give to her
son. When the jail authorities inspected the said cloths they
found 200 grams of hashish oil hidden inside the cloths.
They have apprehended the accused and enquired her. They
seized
the
contraband
seized
under
a
detail
seizure
panchanama. A detail report was prepared and submitted
before SHO which is the basis to register the case against the
accused
in
Cr.No.210/2022
of
Parappana
Agrahara
PS
registered for the offence punishable U/Sec.8(c), 21(B), 22(B)
of NDPS Act and Sec. 424 of IPC with Sec. 42 Prison Act.
Thereafter, petitioner was arrested and produced before
jurisdictional Magistrate and remanded to JC.
5
CCH33
Crl.Misc.No.8384/2022
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 resident 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. The prosecution opposed the bail plea on the ground
that the offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable
upto 10 years.
In the event of grant of bail he is going to
abscond and may hamper investigation.
10.
On careful analysis of rival contentions and the
prosecution papers available on record the investigating
agency seized 200 grams of Hashish Oil under the seizure
panchanama.
The petitioner is in judicial custody since the
date of his arrest i.e., from 13.06.2022.
On looking to the
seizure panchanama the drugs seized is weighing 200 grams of
6
Hashish Oil.
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.23 the narcotic drug
Hashish Oil 100 grams is small quantity and 1 Kg., is
commercial quantity. In this case the quantum of Hashish Oil
seized is 200 grams which 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.8384/2022
7
11.
Here in this case the drugs seized by the
investigating agency to the tune of of Hashish Oil 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. The
offence alleged against the petitioner is not punishable with
death or imprisonment for life. Further custodial interrogation
is not warranted. Voluntary statement of accused 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.
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 with I.O for 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 dates of
hearing.
9
CCH33
Crl.Misc.No.8384/2022
8. 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 16th day of September 2022]
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.
CN/*