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 4th DAY OF AUGUST 2022
Crl. Misc.No.7129/2022
Petitioner :
(accused No.1)
Ravikumar @ Ravi
S/o Keroji Rao,
Aged about 22 years,
R/at No.305, 6th Cross,
2nd Main, Bangarappa Nagara,
R.R.Nagara, Bengaluru­560098
(By Sri JVS. Adv).
V/S.

Respondent :
State by R.R. Nagar 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 in Cr.No.187/2022
of
R.R. Nagar PS., registered for the offence punishable
U/Sec. 20(b) of NDPS 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 been falsely implicated by the
respondent in this case.

Though the alleged offences are
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. Petitioner
has no criminal antecedents. 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, 510 grams of ganja.
The offences alleged against the petitioner is punishable
with rigorous imprisonment for a term upto 20 years and
shall also be liable to fine.

There is a primafacie case
available against the petitioner. He is habitual drug dealer.

3
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No.7129/2022
There is primafacie case made out against petitioner. If
petitioner is released on bail, he will continue the profession
of narcotic drug selling, and he may abscond and tamper
evidence of the prosecution. 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: The PI of R.R. Nagar., has put the
criminal law into motion. The gist of the allegation reads as
here under:­
4
On 29.6.2022, at 01.30 PM., when the complainant
was discharging duties in the station, he has received a
credible information that at BEML Layout near Shakthi
Resorts, on the NICE Road which leads to Poornaprajna
layout one person is selling ganja packets to the public. On
confirming about the information he has registered a suo­
motu case in Crime No.187/2022 for the offence punishable
u/Sec.20(b) of NDPS Act. Thereafter, he has intimated the
matter to his higher officer obtained permission and
arranged a raiding team and visited the spot and found the
suspected person i.e., the present petitioner. He has
apprehended him and on enquiry he has revealed his name
and address.

On personal search
he
was
found in
possession of ganja to the tune of 1 kgs 510 grams. The
contraband was seized and a detail mahazar was drawn in
the spot. Accused was arrested and a report is prepared,
thereafter accused is produced before the court and
remanded to judicial custody.
8.

It is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner
that he was planted in the case by the complainant police
he is unaware of seized drug. The seized article is not
5
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No.7129/2022
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 is
committed heinous offence 1 Kg, 510 grams of ganja is
seized from the petitioner and other accused. The offence
punishable with imprisonment upto 20 years and with fine.
There are prima­facie material available against him.

10.

On careful analysis of rival contentions and the
prosecution papers available on record, it is evident that on
29.6.2022 at about 2.15 PM., the PSI of R.R. Nagar PS., has
conducted raid and he has apprehended the petitioner
herein. On looking to the seizure panchanama the drugs
seized is weighing 1 Kg, 510 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
6
grams is small quantity and 20 Kgs., is commercial
quantity. In this case the quantum of ganja seized is 1 kg
510 grams is a intermediary quantity.
11.

Here in this case the drugs seized by the
investigating agency to the tune of 1 kg 510 grams of ganja
from the accused. The present petitioner is arrested on
29.6.2022.
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.

7
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No.7129/2022
Here in this case, from the present petitioner is 1 kg
510 grams of ganja and which would not fall within the
ambit of commercial 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. The accused herein is
not having previous criminal antecedents.

He is not an
habitual offender. Major portion of the investigation in the
case is concluded.
seized.

The incriminatory article is already
The offence alleged against the petitioner is not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
custodial interrogation is not warranted.

Further
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.
12. Point No.2:­
following:
In the result, I proceed to pass
8
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.

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.

8.

Breach of any of the conditions by the
petitioner would entail cancellation of bail.

with
I.O
for
[Dictated to the Judgment Writer, directly on the computer, typed
and computerised by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced
by me in Open Court on this the 4th day of August 2022]
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.

9
pst/*
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No.7129/2022