Bengaluru Court Grants Bail to Woman Accused in Ganja Peddling Case Citing Parity and Intermediate Quantity

Parity and Quantity: Accused No. 3 Granted Bail in Mahadevapura NDPS Case After Co-Accused Secured Release. In a recent judicial development concerning a narcotics case, the XXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru (CCH-33), granted regular bail to a woman accused of ganja peddling. The order, pronounced by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, on March 20, 2024, favored the petitioner, Almas (accused no. 3), citing grounds of parity with her co-accused and the classification of the quantity allegedly seized from her.

Almas, W/o Afroz Khan, aged 42, was seeking bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in connection with Cr. No. 438/2023 registered at the Mahadevapura Police Station for offenses punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

Background of the Case

The case originated from a raid conducted by the Mahadevapura Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) following credible intelligence received on August 15, 2023. The informant tipped off the police that two men and one woman were near the KR Puram Metro station’s New Light junction, allegedly carrying contraband in blue luggage and trolley bags for sale.

After obtaining permission from the ACP and arranging for panchas (independent witnesses) and staff, the police team proceeded to the spot. There, they apprehended the three individuals—later identified as Sujit Mahakuda, Ashiwni Kumar Patra, and the petitioner, Almas. The accused allegedly attempted to flee upon sighting the police but were quickly surrounded and apprehended.

Upon questioning, the accused confessed to carrying ganja collected from the Pulvani district Hilly area of Kandahamal, Orissa, and intended for sale in Bengaluru. A subsequent mahazar (seizure memo) was drawn up, detailing the recovery of the contraband. The total weight of the seized material, which included semi-wet ganja, leaves, flowers, and seeds, was recorded as 20 Kgs. 500 grams.

The police registered a case under the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act, which carries a minimum punishment of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a maximum of 20 years for commercial quantity offenses.

Petitioner’s Arguments for Bail

The counsel for Almas, Sri ST, advanced several arguments in support of the bail petition:

False Implication and Innocence: The petitioner claimed innocence, stating she was falsely implicated in the case.
Medical Grounds: She highlighted her critical health condition, mentioning she was suffering from TB and low BP and was undergoing treatment. The court had initially granted her interim bail on these medical grounds.
Concluded Investigation: The defense argued that the investigation had concluded, and the charge sheet had been filed, rendering further detention unnecessary for the purposes of the probe.
Readiness to Abide by Conditions: The petitioner expressed her willingness to comply with any conditions imposed by the court, including offering surety for her due appearance.
Parity: Crucially, the main thrust of the regular bail application was the principle of parity, as co-accused Nos. 1 and 2 had already been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl. Petition 12696/2023, dated December 18, 2023.

Prosecution’s Opposition

The Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail petition, asserting that the seized quantity of 20 Kgs. 500 grams was a commercial quantity, an offense punishable with a minimum of 10 years of imprisonment. The prosecution contended that there was sufficient material against the petitioner, the seizure procedure under the NDPS Act was duly complied with, and her release might lead to her tampering with witnesses or committing similar offenses.

Court’s Analysis and Finding

The Special Judge, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, meticulously reviewed the arguments, the police report, and the High Court’s order concerning the co-accused.

1. Parity and Quantity Differentiation:

The most decisive factor was the grant of bail to the co-accused (Accused Nos. 1 and 2) by the High Court. The High Court’s order had noted that the overall quantity contained leaves, stem, seeds, and flowers, and that the investigation was complete.

More significantly, the Special Judge noted that while the total seized quantity was 20 Kgs. 500 grams, the amount seized specifically from the possession of the present petitioner, Almas (Accused No. 3), was only 2 Kgs. This 2 Kgs. quantity falls within the definition of intermediate quantity under the NDPS Act, as the commercial quantity for ganja (cannabis) is 20 Kgs., and the small quantity is 1 Kg.

2. Section 37 Compliance:

The NDPS Act, particularly Section 37, places stringent restrictions on granting bail for commercial quantity offenses. However, by establishing that the individual quantity recovered from the petitioner was an intermediate quantity, the court found itself in a position where the rigor of Section 37 was somewhat mitigated, especially when coupled with the ground of parity.

3. Conclusion of Investigation:

With the investigation concluded and the charge sheet already filed, the court determined that the petitioner’s continued custody was not essential for the process of investigation.

Considering the High Court’s decision to grant bail to the co-accused, and the fact that the petitioner was found in possession of an intermediate quantity, the Court concluded that imposing stringent conditions would suffice to ensure her presence and prevent interference with the trial.

Order Details

The Court, therefore, allowed the bail petition. The petitioner, Almas, was ordered to be enlarged on bail upon executing a personal bond for a sum of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two sureties for the like sum, subject to the following stringent conditions:

The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
She shall not tamper with the witnesses or abscond.
She shall not commit a similar offense or any offense while on bail.
She must furnish her photo ID proof and local address proof, along with the photo ID proof of her sureties.
She must appear before the court on all hearing dates.

The order concluded with a clear warning that a breach of any of these conditions would entail the cancellation of her bail. The verdict underscores the judiciary’s adherence to legal principles, ensuring that while the fight against drug trafficking remains paramount, an individual’s right to liberty is protected, particularly when the criteria for parity and quantity classification are met.