Bengaluru, Karnataka – In a notable development concerning a narcotics case, the XXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (NDPS) in Bengaluru granted bail to the petitioner, Anand (Accused No. 1), in a case involving the seizure of Ganja. The order, delivered on December 19, 2022, allowed the petition (Crl.Misc.No.11420/2022) filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. related to Crime No. 91/2021 registered at Devanahalli Police Station under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act.

The court’s decision was heavily influenced by the classification of the contraband seized directly from the petitioner, which was determined to be an intermediate quantity, thus relaxing the stringent bail restrictions typically imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The Prosecution’s Case and Allegations of Large Seizure

The criminal law was set in motion on August 30, 2021, when the PSI of Devanahalli PS received credible information about two individuals peddling Ganja near a shop on Nandi Hills road. A raid was conducted, leading to the apprehension of Anand (Accused No. 1). The other person, identified as Sagar S/o. Rudresha (Accused No. 2), managed to escape.

During the spot search of Accused No. 1, a bag containing 5 Kgs and 200 grams of Ganja was seized. A case was registered against Anand and the absconding Sagar.

Subsequently, based on the voluntary statement of Anand (Accused No. 1), a third person, identified as Sachin (Accused No. 3), was apprehended. The prosecution claimed that a massive quantity of 101 Kgs and 600 grams of Ganja was seized from the house of this subsequently apprehended person.

Petitioner’s Grounds for Bail

The petitioner, Anand, sought bail primarily on the following grounds:

• He is innocent and falsely implicated, claiming to be unaware of the seized drug.
• The procedure contemplated under the NDPS Act (specifically Sections 41, 42, 50, 52, and 47) was not followed during the recovery.
• Crucially, the contraband seized directly from his possession (5 Kgs 200 grams) is not a commercial quantity.
• He is a permanent resident and ready to abide by any conditions imposed by the court, including offering surety.

Court’s Finding on Contraband Quantity

The court’s analysis focused intently on the quantity of Ganja seized from the petitioner. Referring to the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E) dated 19.10.2001 (Sl.No.55), the court reiterated the established thresholds for Ganja:

• Small Quantity: 1,000 grams (1 Kg)
• Commercial Quantity: 20 Kgs

Since the quantity of Ganja seized from the petitioner, Anand, was 5 Kgs and 200 grams, the court unequivocally classified it as an intermediate quantity.

This finding was pivotal, as the court held that when the quantity is less than the commercial quantity, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not attract. Consequently, the criteria for granting bail revert to the factors considered under regular statutes, unless the prosecution can point to exceptional circumstances.

The court relied on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Birbal Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (2018 11 SCC 488), where bail was granted for a non-commercial quantity (14 Kgs of Ganja). This case law was deemed to aptly apply to the current matter.

Discrepancies and Judicial Doubt

Beyond the quantity classification, the court also noted several material discrepancies in the prosecution’s records that raised doubts regarding the entire sequence of the large seizure:

• The initial accused who absconded was named Sagar, but the police arrested a third accused named Sachin.
• There were discrepancies in the time of arrest for Accused No. 3, with the panchanama showing 7:00 pm and the remand application showing 11:00 pm.
• The year of recording the voluntary statement of Accused No. 1 was shown as 2020 instead of 2021.

The court observed that “All these circumstances in the case creates doubt of seizure of huge quantum of contraband at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 3.”

Given that the direct seizure from the petitioner was intermediate in nature, the investigation was concluded, and the charge sheet was filed, the court determined that further custodial interrogation was not warranted.

Bail Order and Stringent Conditions

Concluding that the petitioner had made out sufficient grounds to be enlarged on bail, the court allowed the petition. The court proceeded to impose stringent conditions to address the prosecution’s apprehension that the petitioner might abscond or tamper with witnesses.

The court ordered the petitioner’s release on bail upon executing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with Two sureties for the like sum.

The following six conditions were imposed:

1. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of this court without prior permission.
2. He shall not tamper with the witness or abscond.
3. He shall not commit similar offence or any offence while on bail.
4. He shall furnish his photo ID proof and photo ID proof of his sureties.
5. He shall appear before the court on all hearing dates.
6. Breach of any of the conditions by the petitioner would entail cancellation of bail.

The order was pronounced in Open Court on December 19, 2022, marking a victory for the defense based on the crucial distinction between intermediate and commercial quantities under the NDPS Act.