The Court of the XXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS) in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to Ananda (45), who was sought as Accused No. 1 in a case involving the illegal cultivation of a cannabis plant. The bail, filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), relates to Crime No. 75/2022 registered at Vishwanathapura Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

The order, pronounced by Judge Smt. B.S. Jayashree on June 27, 2022, was contingent upon the fact that the seized quantity of the contraband—2 kilograms and 270 grams of Ganja plant—was classified as an intermediate quantity, thereby lifting the automatic legal restrictions imposed by the most stringent bail provision of the NDPS Act.

Allegations and Seizure Details

The case was initiated based on a report from the PSI of Vishwanathapura Police Station.

Incident Summary

• Date of Information: June 10, 2022, at 12:05 AM.
• Information Received: The police received credible information that one Ananda, S/o Muni Anjanappa, was illegally cultivating a cannabis plant beside his house in Aruvanahalli Village, Devanahalli Taluk.
• Raid and Seizure: After obtaining permission from a higher officer, the complainant and his team conducted a raid. They observed one Ganja plant grown near the accused’s house, partially covered with a plastic bag.
• Apprehension: Upon seeing the police, the accused, who was present at the spot, fled the scene.
• Contraband Recovered: The police uprooted the plant, and upon weighing, the cannabis plant was found to be 2 Kgs., 270 grams.
• Case Registration: A detailed seizure panchanama was drawn, and the case was registered under Cr.No. 75/2022 for the offence under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act. The petitioner remains unarrested.

Analysis of Bail Grounds and Prosecution Objections

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner, represented by Advocate Sri V.R., asserted his innocence, claiming he was unaware of the drug and was falsely implicated. The key points raised for granting anticipatory bail were:

1. He has no knowledge of the alleged crime.
2. The offence is not punishable with imprisonment for life or death sentence.
3. The seized article is not a commercial quantity.
4. He has no bad antecedents and is the sole bread earner for his family.
5. He is a permanent resident and ready to abide by all court conditions.

Prosecution’s Opposition

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, arguing that the offence is serious, punishable with rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years, and that there is a prima facie case against the accused, attracting Section 20(B) of the Act. They contended that the accused is a habitual drug dealer, and if enlarged on bail, he might abscond and hamper the investigation.

Court’s Determination on Quantity and Custody

The Special Judge meticulously evaluated the quantum of the seized drug in light of the central legislation.

The court referenced the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E) dated October 19, 2001 (Sl.No. 55), which dictates the classification of Ganja:

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

The seized quantity of 2 Kgs., 270 grams clearly falls above the small quantity threshold but significantly below the commercial quantity. Therefore, it is categorized as an Intermediate Quantity.

Crucially, the court noted that since the quantity is less than the commercial quantity, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not apply. Section 37 imposes strict twin conditions for bail that are typically very difficult to meet. Without these rigors, the bail application is considered under the general principles of the Cr.P.C.

Furthermore, the court made two key observations regarding the status of the investigation:

1. There is no material collected by the investigating agency yet to confirm that the accused is indeed the owner of the house where the plant was grown.
2. The incriminatory article (the plant) has already been seized, meaning the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted for the recovery of material evidence.

Considering the petitioner’s asserted lack of previous criminal antecedents and his permanent residence, the court concluded that the prosecution’s apprehension of flight or tampering could be adequately addressed through the imposition of stringent bail conditions. The court, therefore, answered the point for consideration in the affirmative.

Order and Stringent Conditions

The petition for anticipatory bail was allowed, directing the Vishwanathapura Police Station to release Ananda on bail in the event of his arrest, subject to the execution of a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two sureties for the like sum.

The release is subject to the following stringent conditions:

1. No Inducement/Threat: The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing facts to the Court or police.
2. Monthly Attendance: He shall mark his attendance before the concerned Investigating Officer (I.O.) on every first Sunday of the month between 10:00 AM and 5:00 PM, until the filing of the charge sheet or further orders, whichever is earlier.
3. Court Attendance: He shall attend before the Court on all dates of hearing without fail and shall not leave the jurisdiction of this court until the conclusion of the trial without prior permission.
4. No Tampering: He shall not threaten or try to tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
5. No Similar Offence: He shall not commit a similar offence or any offence while on bail.
6. Proof Submission: He shall furnish his photo ID proof and photo identity proof of his surety.

The order explicitly warned that the breach of any of these conditions would automatically entail the cancellation of bail.