In a crucial ruling on a drug trafficking case, the XXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS) in Bengaluru granted bail to Anil Kumar Ray, a 30-year-old man from Odisha, who was arrested with 6 kilograms of Ganja.

The order, dated March 28, 2024, found that the quantity of Ganja seized fell under the “intermediate quantity” threshold, thereby exempting the petitioner from the stringent bail restrictions mandated by Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. This legal distinction was pivotal to the court’s decision to allow the bail petition, filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

The Prosecution’s Case and Seizure Details

The case originated from Crime No. 251/2024, registered by the Mahadevapura Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act.

According to the complaint report filed by the PSI of Mahadevapura Police Station, on March 19, 2024, police on patrolling duty received credible information about a person selling contraband near the Diesel Shed Railway Station Road. A case was registered, and police proceeded to the spot with panchas. They apprehended the petitioner, identified as Anil Kumar Ray, who was carrying a travelling bag.

Upon questioning, the accused allegedly admitted to securing the Ganja from a person in Vizag, Andhra Pradesh, for Rs. 40,000/-. A search was conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, and the travelling bag was found to contain Ganja. The contraband was weighed, totaling 6 kilograms, and was seized under a detailed mahazar. The petitioner was subsequently arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

The prosecution opposed the bail plea, arguing that 6 Kgs of Ganja was a significant seizure, establishing a prima facie case against the petitioner who was characterized as a habitual drug dealer. They contended that granting bail would risk the petitioner absconding and hampering the investigation.

Intermediate Quantity: The Key Legal Distinction

The defense counsel argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated, was unaware of the alleged crime, and that the mandatory provisions for search and seizure under the NDPS Act had not been complied with. Most significantly, the defense claimed the seized article was not a commercial quantity.

The court, presided over by SMT. B.S. Jayashree, carefully analyzed the quantum of the narcotic substance seized against the official notification defining small and commercial quantities.

Referencing the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E) dated 19.10.2001 (Sl. No. 55 for Ganja), the court established the following critical thresholds for Ganja:

• Small Quantity: 1000 grams (1 Kg)
• Commercial Quantity: 20 Kgs (20,000 grams)

Since the quantity seized was 6 Kgs, it was determined to be an “intermediate quantity,” falling between the small and commercial limits.

Relaxation of Section 37 Rigors

The Judge relied on the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in Birbal Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (2018 11 SCC 488), where the Supreme Court held that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act—which imposes strict twin conditions for bail—do not apply when the quantity involved is non-commercial.

“When the quantity is less than commercial quantity, rigors of Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act will not attract, and factors become similar to bail petitions under regular statutes normal, unless the prosecution points towards exceptional circumstances,” the order stated.

The court noted that the major portion of the investigation had already concluded with the seizure of the Ganja, and further custodial interrogation was not warranted. Considering the offence is not punishable with death or life imprisonment, the court found the petitioner had made out sufficient grounds for bail.

Bail Conditions Imposed

The court answered the point for consideration in the affirmative and proceeded to allow the petition.

Anil Kumar Ray was ordered to be enlarged on bail upon executing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum, subject to stringent conditions to ensure his cooperation and prevent him from absconding:

1. The petitioner must give attendance before the concerned Investigating Officer (I.O.) once a month (preferably on the first Monday of every month between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.) until the charge sheet is filed or further orders are issued.
2. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
3. He shall not tamper with the witnesses or abscond.
4. He must co-operate with the I.O. for investigation.
5. He shall not commit a similar offence or any other offence while on bail.
6. He must furnish his photo ID proof and local address proof to the court, along with the photo ID proof of his sureties.
7. He must appear before the court on all hearing dates.
8. The order explicitly warned that breach of any of these conditions would entail the cancellation of bail.

The ruling re-emphasizes the pivotal role of the quantity of contraband in NDPS cases, confirming that judicial discretion is retained for bail applications involving intermediate quantities, which are not subject to the absolute prohibition against bail that applies to commercial quantity seizures.