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 2nd DAY OF APRIL 2024
Crl.Misc.No.3091/2024
Petitioner :
(accused No.1)
Syed Rizwan Pasha, S/o.Munna, 30
years, R/at.Dayananda Nagara, Near
Yellamma Temple, Siddapura I Block,
Jayanagar, Bangalore city.
(By Sri GKN., Adv.)
V/S.

Respondent :
State by Ramamurthy 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 Cr.No.178/2024 of
Ramamurthy
Nagar
PS,
registered
for
the
punishable U/Sec.20(b) of NDPS Act.
2. The prevalent grounds urged seeking bail:­
offence
2
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.
seized
is
not
commercial
quantity.

The contraband
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., 500 grams
of
ganja. There are sufficient material available against the
petitioner, and the said offences are punishable with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which 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
3
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No.3091/2024
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 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 PSI, of Ramamurthy Nagar
PS.,
Bangalore has presented the complaint before the SHO. The
gist of the allegation reads as here under:­
On
23.3.2024
at
about
9.30
am.,
when
the
complainant was in the station discharging duty he has
received credible information that near Bethel School,
Vijinapura, Ramamurthy Nagar one person aged about 35
years is selling narcotic drugs to the public. On receipt of
the information he has informed the matter to his superior
officer obtained permission and he along with panchas and
staff went to the spot and saw the suspected person. They
apprehended him and on enquiry he has revealed his name
and address. On search he has seized 1 Kg., 500 grams of
ganja under detail mahazar. A detail report was prepared
and submitted before SHO. Basing on the report, a case in
Cr.178/2024 is registered for the offence punishable
U/s.20(b), of NDPS Act.

Thereafter accused was arrested
and produced before the court and remanded to judicial
custody.

CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No.3091/2024
5
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 search
and seizure 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
has committed heinous offence 1 Kg., 500 grams of ganja
is seized from the petitioner. The offence punishable with
imprisonment upto 10 years and with fine. There are
primafacie material available against them.
10. On careful analysis of rival contentions and the
prosecution papers available on record, it is evident that on
23.3.2024
apprehended
complainant
accused.

has
On
conducted
looking
to
raid
the
and
seizure
panchanama the drugs seized from petitioner herein is
weighing 1 Kg., 500 grams of ganja. As per specification of
small
and
commercial
quantity
of
narcotic
drug
or
6
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 1 Kg., 500 grams
of ganja 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.
11. Here in this case the drugs seized by the
investigating agency to the tune of
1 Kg., 500 grams of
ganja which is an intermediate quantity. When the quantity
is less than commercial quantity, rigors of Sec.37 of the
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No.3091/2024
7
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 the investigation is
concluded. 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 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.

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
executing
personal
is
enlarged
bond
for
on
a
bail
on
sum
of
Rs.1,00,000/­ with one surety for the like sum
with following conditions.

8
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
local address proof document before the
court 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 stenographer, directly on the computer, typed and
computerised by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me
in Open Court on this the 2nd day of April 2024)
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.