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 JANUARY 2023
Crl. Misc.No.12694/2022
Petitioner :
(accused No.2)
V Sai Sidhartha Reddy, S/o.Sreedhar
Reddy, 21 years, No.15/2548, Near
SVL School, Reddeppa Naidu Colony,
Madanapalli, Chittoor, Andhra
Pradesh 517325.
(By Sri NGMR., 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 him on bail, in Cr.No.48/1/30/2022/BZU
of NCB., registered for the offences punishable U/Sec.20(b)(ii)
(A), 23(a), 27, 27(A), 28 and 29 of N.D.P.S. Act.
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. No incriminating materials were seized
by the Respondent police from the house of petitioner during
search.
The alleged seizure of 70 grams of ganja is a small
quantity. The offence is punishable with imprisonment upto 6
months and is triable by magistrate, rigors of Sec.37 is not
attracted to the case of the petitioner.
The investigating
agency has not segregated the green flowers, fruiting tops of
cannabis plant. The petitioner is a B.com., graduate in Christ
College, Bengaluru and working in a private sector as
Financial analyst.
His father is a doctor working as Asst.
Director, Animal Husbandry, Madanapalli, Andhra Pradesh
and his mother is also a doctor working as Asst. Director,
Thambalpalli, Andhra Pradesh.
He is having good track
record. If he is incarcerated in jail he will come in contact with
anti social elements and his career would be ruined. Though
the alleged offence is non bailable, but is neither punishable
with imprisonment for life or death sentence. The petitioner
3
CCH33
Crl.Misc.12694/2022
was arrested from his office at MKB Plaza, 4 th Floor, 7th Main
road, Motappa Palya, Indiranagar, Bengaluru and nothing is
seized at the instance of the petitioner. There is no connection
or active part played by this petitioner. He is having no
criminal antecedents and is permanent resident in the address
as 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 70 grams of ganja inside the
parcel. The IO., NCB., basing on the credible information has
intercepted the parcel containing 70 grams of ganja. During
follow up action on 21.12.2022 one person by name Benson
S/o.Benny Lukose of Anekal, Bangalore came to collect the
parcel. He was served with notice by the NCB IO. The Benson
@ Benson Benny who has collected the parcel has affixed his
signature on the delivery manifesto at Electronic city post
office. During his voluntary statement he has stated that he is
4
in the habit of consuming ganja along with his associate V Sai
Sidhartha Reddy. Benson @ Benson Benny has paid a sum of
Rs.20,000/ through FI Bank to V Sai Sidhartha Reddy to his
mobile No.8073876896, remaining Rs.20,000/ paid by V Sai
Sidhartha Reddy towards purchase of ganja. The investigating
agency collected materials in regard to the booking of parcel
and the payment made by the accused
persons.
There are
sufficient materials available against the petitioner. The offence
is punishable with rigorous imprisonment. In the event of his
release he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
Incriminatory articles were seized. He may involve himself in
similar
offences.
Investigating
agency
by
complying
the
provisions prevailed under the act has seized the contraband.
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 learned counsel for the petitioner and the
prosecution.
CCH33
Crl.Misc.12694/2022
5
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 NCB, Bangalore has put the
criminal law into motion. The gist of the allegation reads as
here under:
7(a)
On
20.12.2022,
IO.,
NCB
received
credible
information that a parcel bearing No.UA 931757695US is
laying at Foreign Post, Office, Chamarajpet, Bangalore is
suspected to be containing narcotic drugs i.e., ganja. As per
the information the NCB team reached the spot and inspected
the the parcel and seized 70 grams of ganja from the said
6
parcel. The seizure mahazar was drawn on spot. During follow
up action on 21.12.2022 one person by name Benson
S/o.Benny Lukose of Anekal, Bangalore/petitioner herein
came to collect the parcel. He was served with notice by the
NCB IO. The Benson @ Benson Benny who has collected the
parcel has affixed his signature on the delivery manifesto at
Electronic city post office.
During his voluntary statement he has stated that he is
in the habit of consuming ganja along with his associate V Sai
Sidartha Reddy/present petitioner. Benson @ Benny has paid
a sum of Rs.20,000/ through FI Bank to V Sai Sidartha
Reddy to his mobile No.8073876896, remaining Rs.20,000/
paid by V Sai Sidartha Reddy towards purchase of ganja. The
present petitioner is accused No.2 in this case.
8. The learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argues
that small quantity of ganja alleged to have been seized from
the parcel. There is no role of present petitioner in booking the
parcel. In the event of grant of bail he is ready to offer solvent
surety for his appearance before the court.
CCH33
Crl.Misc.12694/2022
7
9. On the other hand, prosecution contend that the IO
has seized contraband i.e., 70 grams of ganja from the parcel
and petitioner has booked the parcel, he has paid amount
towards the purchase and he is a consumer of drugs. He has
committed heinous offence. There are primafacie material
available against him. If he is released on bail he may abscond
and hamper the investigation.
10.
On careful analysis of rival contentions and the
prosecution papers available on record the investigating
agency
seized
panchanama.
70
grams
of
ganja
under
the
seizure
The petitioner is in judicial custody since the
date of his arrest.
The investigation is in progress accused is
in judicial custody. The incriminatory substance is already
seized. The forensic report about the narcotic substance is yet
to be received. At this stage the quantity of ganja seized is a
small quantity. As per Sec.20(a) the offence alleged against the
petitioner is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which shall extend upto 1 year and fine. As per specification of
small
and
commercial
quantity
of
narcotic
drug
or
8
psychotropic
Department
substance
of
Revenue
issued
by
Ministry
Notification
of
Finance
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 70 grams which is small
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 small
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.12694/2022
9
11.
Here in this case the drugs seized by the
investigating agency to the tune of 70 grams of ganja. If he is
released on bail by imposing stringent conditions, it would not
in any way hamper the trial and the case. Further custodial
detention is not warranted.
As per the information provided
by the petitioner he is permanently residing in the address
shown in the cause title. In the result, I answer the point for
consideration in 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. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of this
court without prior permission.
2. He shall not tamper the witness or
abscond.
3. He shall not commit similar offence or
any offence while on bail.
10
4.
He shall furnish his photo ID proof and
photo ID proof of his sureties.
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 4th day of January 2023].
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.