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 9th DAY OF DECEMBER 2022
Crl.Misc.No.11910/2022
Petitioner :
(accused No.3)
Rebecca Maggie Pereira, D/o.Tyro
Pereira, a/a 27 years, R/at 2nd Floor,
Sai Nihal Nilayam, K.R.Nagar,
Choodasandra, Bengaluru560099.
(By Sri Balakrishan Jagtap., Adv.)
V/S.
Respondent :
State by NCB
(By Spl.Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
The present petition U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C., is filed by
the petitioner to enlarge her on bail, in Cr.No.NCB F
No.48/1/29/2022/BZU
registered
for
the
offences
punishable U/Sec.8(c), 20(b) (ii)(A), 27, 28 and 29 of
N.D.P.S. 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. She has not committed any offence much less the
offence as alleged. The petitioner had no knowledge of the
drugs and about the incident. There is no evidence that the
petitioner is involved in the case. The petitioner is working
as Client Servicing Executive in ACME Experience at
Indiranagar, Bangalore.
The ganja alleged to have been
seized to the tune of 108 grams does not belongs to her.
The said article was seized by the Respondent IO., at Sri
Maruthi Courier Pvt., Ltd., Hebbal which is far away from
the residence of petitioner. Petitioner is either in possession
or having the knowledge of the drug. She has been falsely
implanted in the case.
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.
She is ready to offer surety for her due
CCH33
Crl.Misc.No.11910/2022
3
appearance before this court. She has no bad antecedents.
Hence, sought to grant bail.
3. The objection raised by the prosecution to the bail
application of the petitioner is as hereunder:
the IO., NCB has seized 581 grams of flowering and
fruiting tops of cannabis believed to be ganja from 4 parcels
at Sri Maruthi Courier services Pvt., ltd., Bangalore, Hebbal.
259 grams from parcel document No.22062150009795, 108
grams from parcel No.22062150009790, 105 grams
parcel No.22062150009789,
209
grams
from
from parcel
No.22062150009797. In regard to seizure of parcel a case
has been registered in NCB Cr.No.48/129/2022/BZU. The
receivers of the 4 parcels namely Rebacca Maggie Pereira,
Vanshika Kasera, Saikar Bhattacharyya and Imtiyaz were
intercepted during follow up action and were summoned for
enquiry. Their statements came to be recorded. In the
statement accused No.1 she has stated that she has booked
the parcel of ganja though Whatsapp No.8082685282 in the
name of Arpitha Dalmiya. The supplier is one Rahul from
Siliguri who has sent the parcel containing ganja through
4
Sri maruthi Couriers. She has procured ganja three times
previously from the supplier Rahul Banik of Siliguri.
Further,
she is a consumer of ganja.
The investigating
agency has seized 581 grams of ganja from the the 4 parcels
addressed to the receivers.
The seizure was made before
independent witnesses. She has also consumed ganja. The
investigation is in progress. In the event of grant of bail, she
may abscond and may hamper the investigation. There is a
primafacie case available against the petitioner. In the event
of grant of bail, she would abscond and may hamper the
investigation.
Hence, sought to reject the bail plea of
petitioner.
4. Heard the arguments of both sides.
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:
CCH33
Crl.Misc.No.11910/2022
5
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 the IO., NCB
Bangalore who is the complainant in this case.
The
contents of the report is as here under:
the IO., NCB has seized 581 grams of flowering and
fruiting tops of cannabis believed to be ganja from 4 parcels
at Sri Maruthi Courier services Pvt., ltd., Bangalore, Hebbal.
259 grams from parcel document No.22062150009795, 108
grams from parcel No.22062150009790, 105 grams
parcel No.22062150009789,
209
grams
from
from parcel
No.22062150009797. In regard to seizure of parcel a case
has been registered in NCB Cr.No.48/129/2022/BZU. The
receivers of the 4 parcels namely Rebacca Maggie Pereira,
Vanshika Kasera, Saikar Bhattacharyya and Imtiyaz were
intercepted during follow up action and were summoned for
enquiry. Their statements came to be recorded. Basing on
the statement of the receivers they have been prosecuted in
the aforesaid case for the offences punishable U/s.8(c)
6
r/w.Sec.20(b)(ii)(a), 27, 28 and 29 of NDPS Act. The present
petitioner is accused No.2 in the case.
In the statement accused
No.1 she has stated that
she has booked the parcel of ganja though Whatsapp
No.8082685282 in the name of Arpitha Dalmiya.
The
supplier is one Rahul from Siliguri who has sent the parcel
containing ganja through Sri maruthi Couriers. She has
procured ganja three times previously from the supplier
Rahul Banik of Siliguri.
Further,
she is a consumer of
ganja.
8. It is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner
that the petitioner had no knowledge of the drugs and about
the incident. There is no evidence that the petitioner is
involved in the case. Voluntary statement of the petitioner
is recorded after the seizure.
booked
by
present
The present parcel was not
petitioner.
Petitioner
is
no
more
connected to this case. Petitioner is either in possession or
having the knowledge of the drug. The parcel is booked in
the name of one Ariptha Dalmiya. She has been falsely
implanted in the case. She is permanent resident of the
7
CCH33
Crl.Misc.No.11910/2022
address given in the cause title. The quantity of ganja
seized in the case is small quantity. In the event of grant of
bail she 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 there was seizure of 581 grams of ganja from
the parcel.
The seizure was made before independent
witnesses. The receivers were intercepted. Their statement
came to be recorded.
They are also consumers of ganja.
The investigation is in progress. In the event of grant of bail
she 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 581 grams of ganja under the seizure
panchanama. The petitioner is in judicial custody since the
date of her arrest i.e., from 2.12.2022. On looking to the
seizure panchanama the drugs seized is weighing 581 grams
of ganja seized from the parcels.
The parcel which is
received by the present petitioner is containing 100 grams.
As per specification of small and commercial quantity of
8
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 from the
parcel addressed to present petitioner is 109 grams which is
a small quantity.
11.
Here in this case the drugs seized by the
investigating agency to the tune of 581 grams of ganja from
the four parcels which is a small 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 petition under regular statues normal, unless the
prosecution points towards exceptional circumstances. 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.
As per the information provided by the
petitioner she is permanently residing in the address shown
CCH33
Crl.Misc.No.11910/2022
9
in the cause title. The apprehension of the prosecution that
she may abscond and may protract the trial could be
compensated by imposing stringent conditions.
In the
result,
in
I
answer
the
point
for
consideration
the
affirmative.
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 allowed.
The petitioner is enlarged on bail on
executing
personal
bond
for
a
sum
of
Rs.50,000/ with one surety for the like sum
with following conditions.
1. She shall not leave the jurisdiction of
this court without prior permission.
2. She shall not tamper the witness or
abscond.
3. She shall not commit similar offence or
any offence while on bail.
4.
She shall furnish her photo ID proof
and photo ID proof of her sureties.
10
5.
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 9th DAY OF DECEMBER 2022].
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.
CN/*