In a notable decision highlighting the judicial distinction between drug quantities under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, a Special Judge in Bengaluru granted bail to three individuals arrested in connection with the seizure of Ganja. The order, delivered on April 5, 2024, by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, the XXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (NDPS), concluded that the 4 kilograms and 500 grams of Ganja seized constituted an intermediate quantity, thereby preventing the application of the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The petitioners—Anand Kumar (24), Prasanna Kumar (18), and Anandi Vijaykumar (23)—were arrested in Crime No. 165/2024 registered by the Banaswadi Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. They sought bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

The Police Operation and Seizure Details

The case against the petitioners originated from a police raid conducted on March 7, 2024. The Sub-Inspector (PSI) of Banaswadi Police Station received credible information about two men and one woman selling contraband near the Janakiram layout Railway underpass. After obtaining permission from a higher officer, the PSI proceeded to the location with staff and panchas (independent witnesses).

The team apprehended the three petitioners, along with a fourth individual who was determined to be a juvenile in conflict with the law (JICL) and was subsequently produced before the Juvenile Justice Board.

During the search, the police found and seized 4 Kgs. 500 grams of Ganja and zip lock covers from the baggage of the accused. A scooter without a registration number, which was later identified as a stolen vehicle pertaining to another case (Cr.No. 187/2023), was also seized. The arrest and seizure formed the basis of the FIR against the petitioners.

Classification of Contraband Quantity

The primary legal hurdle in any NDPS case bail application is the classification of the seized substance, as this determines whether the demanding restrictions of Section 37 apply.

The court carefully examined the relevant notification—Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O. 1055(E) dated October 19, 2001 (Sl. No. 55)—which provides the official thresholds for Ganja:

• Small Quantity: Up to 1,000 grams (1 kg).
• Commercial Quantity: 20 Kgs. or more.

Since the seized quantity of 4 Kgs. 500 grams (4,500 grams) fell squarely between the small quantity (1 kg) and the commercial quantity (20 kgs), the court definitively classified it as an intermediate quantity.

This crucial finding meant that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not attract. This section mandates that bail cannot be granted unless the court is satisfied that there are “reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty” and is “not likely to commit any offence while on bail”—a very difficult standard for any accused to meet at the initial stage of investigation.

Judicial Reasoning and Precedent

With the obstacle of Section 37 removed, the court was able to consider the bail plea under the normal principles of the Cr.P.C. for offences that are not punishable with death or life imprisonment.

The judge cited the Supreme Court decision in Birbal Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (2018 11 SCC 488), where the Apex Court granted bail in a case involving 14 Kgs. of Ganja, classifying it as a non-commercial quantity. The court held that this case law aptly applies to the matter at hand, necessitating the consideration of the accused’s bail plea.

In addressing the prosecution’s concerns—that the petitioners were habitual drug dealers, had a previous criminal case (Cr.No. 187/2023 for the stolen scooter), and might abscond—the court made several key observations:

• Investigation Status: The major portion of the investigation was concluded since the incriminatory article (Ganja) had already been seized. Their voluntary statements were also recorded.
• Custodial Requirement: Further custodial interrogation of the petitioners was not warranted.
• Security: The petitioners were permanent residents of the addresses provided, minimizing the risk of flight.
• Safeguards: The court asserted that the apprehension of absconding or tampering with the evidence could be compensated by imposing stringent conditions.

Conditions of Release

Finding sufficient grounds for release, the court allowed the petition. The petitioners were each granted bail on executing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum, subject to eight stringent conditions to ensure their cooperation with the legal process:

1. Mandatory Attendance: The petitioners must appear before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) once a month—preferably on the first Monday—between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. until the charge sheet is filed.
2. Jurisdiction Restriction: They shall not leave the court’s jurisdiction without prior permission.
3. No Tampering: They shall not tamper with witnesses or abscond.
4. Cooperation: They shall fully cooperate with the I.O. for investigation.
5. No New Offences: They shall not commit similar or any other offence while on bail.
6. Proof Submission: They must furnish photo ID proof and local address proof for themselves and their sureties.
7. Court Appearance: They must appear before the court on all hearing dates.
8. Breach Consequence: Breach of any condition will result in the cancellation of bail.

The judgment clearly demonstrates that while the NDPS Act is punitive, it follows a structured approach based on the quantity of the drug, providing relief under normal bail law for cases involving intermediate quantities, provided the accused adheres to court-imposed conditions.