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 23th DAY OF AUGUST 2022
Crl. Misc.No.7978/2022
Petitioner :
(accused No.3)
Mr . Ruman Alam, S/o Azeez
Alam, Aged about 19 years, Bari
Bhatabari, Kishan Ganj, Bihar.
R/at Medi Mallasandra Village,
Hanagondanahalli Hobli,
Hosakote Taluq,
Bangalore Rural District
­560067.
(By Sri MM ., Adv).
V/S.

Respondent :
State by V.V Puram PS Bangalore
City.
(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.99/2022 of
2
VV Puram PS., registered for the offence punishable
U/Sec.20(b) of NDPS Act.

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 8 Kgs., 190 grams of
ganja.

The
offences
alleged
against the
petitioner is
3
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No.7978/2022
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.

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:
4
REASONS
7.

Point No.1: The PI of V.V.Puram PS., has put
the criminal law into motion.

The gist of the allegation
reads as here under:­
On 27.7.2022, at 2.00 pm., when the complainant was
discharging duties in the station, he has received a credible
information that at VV Puram service road, near Water tank
some persons are selling contraband to the public.

The
complainant ASI., has reported the matter to the ACP, VV
Puram, obtained permission to conduct raid. He along with
panchas had been to the spot.

At about 2.30 pm., when
they were in the spot mounting surveillance, two persons
were showing the bag to the public, on suspicion they were
apprehended and questioned about the contents of the bag.
On enquiry they have revealed that they are possessing
ganja. The bag was opened the contents were taken out, it
was found to be 8 Kgs., 190 grams of ganja on weighing the
same. The ACP., VV Puram was called to the spot, personal
search of accused was conducted, mobile phones were
seized.

A detail panchanama was drawn. A report is
prepared and submitted before the SHO., which is the basis
5
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No.7978/2022
to register the case against the accused in Cr.No.99/2022
for the offence punishable U/s.20(B) of NDPS Act.

Accused
were arrested and produced before the court. The present
petitioner is accused No.2 in the case.
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
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 8 Kgs., 190 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
27.7.2022 apprehended the petitioner herein. On looking to
6
the seizure panchanama the drugs seized is weighing 8
Kgs., 190 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 grams is small
quantity and 20 Kgs., is commercial quantity. In this case
the quantum of ganja seized is 8 Kgs., 190 grams is a
intermediary 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.7978/2022
7
11. Here in this case the drugs seized by the
investigating agency to the tune of 8 Kgs., 190 grams of
ganja 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 from
accused.

The offence alleged against the petitioner is not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

Further
custodial interrogation is not warranted. His Voluntary
statement 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.
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 23th day of August 2022]
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.
CN/*