Introduction

In a significant ruling delivered on September 2, 2023, the XXXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Spl. Judge (NDPS) in Bengaluru granted bail to two accused individuals, Deva S/o Aniyappa and Vignesh @ Dadu S/o Pandiyan, who were facing charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The order, issued by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, allowed the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) in connection with Cr. No. 226/2023 registered at Adugodi Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The core of the court’s decision hinged on the classification of the seized Ganja quantity as ‘intermediate’ rather than ‘commercial,’ thereby lifting the stringent restrictions on bail mandated by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. This detailed news article delves into the particulars of the case, the arguments presented by both sides, and the court’s rationale for granting bail, making it highly relevant for search engine optimization (SEO) related to NDPS bail, Bengaluru court judgments, and intermediate quantity drug cases.

Case Background and Allegations

The case originated from an incident reported on August 26, 2023, around 9:30 AM, near the Passport office, Ambedkar Statue, Koramangala, Bengaluru. According to the report submitted by the PSI of Adugodi PS, ASI and other police constables on patrolling duty apprehended two individuals who tried to flee upon seeing the police. The accused, later identified as Deva and Vignesh, were found to be in possession of a plastic cover containing what they allegedly admitted was Ganja intended for sale. A subsequent check revealed the cover contained Ganja leaves, stem, seeds, and flowers, weighing a total of 1 Kg and 380 grams. Furthermore, the accused were also found in possession of a deadly weapon, an iron knife and a long, which they allegedly intended to use if obstructed. Following the seizure and detailed mahazar proceedings, a case was registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The petitioners, accused No.1 and No.2, were subsequently arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

Petitioners’ Arguments for Bail

Appearing through their counsel, Sri C. Srinivasa, the petitioners sought bail, vehemently denying any involvement in the alleged crime, claiming they were falsely implicated. Their arguments focused on several key points:

1. False Implication: The petitioners asserted they were illegally detained and a false case was foisted against them while returning home from their labour work.
2. Mandatory Provision Non-Compliance: They argued that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act had not been complied with by the investigating agency.
3. Quantity Classification: Crucially, they contended that the seized quantity of 1 Kg, 380 grams of Ganja did not constitute a commercial quantity.
4. Bail Conditions: The petitioners, identified as permanent residents of the addresses provided, expressed their readiness to abide by any and all conditions imposed by the court, including offering surety for their due appearance.

Prosecution’s Opposition and Counterarguments

The prosecution, represented by the Public Prosecutor, strongly opposed the bail plea. Their objections highlighted the seriousness of the offence and the evidence collected:

1. Prima-Facie Case: The investigating agency seized 1 Kg, 380 grams of Ganja, establishing a strong prima-facie case against the petitioners for possession of a narcotic drug.
2. Punishment Severity: The offence is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term up to 10 years and a fine.
3. Criminal Antecedents: The prosecution alleged that the petitioners are habitual drug dealers, citing their involvement in 2-3 other pending cases in the same police station, suggesting they possess criminal antecedents.
4. Risk of Absconding: The prosecution expressed apprehension that granting bail would lead to the petitioners absconding and potentially hampering the ongoing investigation.

Court’s Analysis and Decision on Bail

After hearing both arguments and meticulously reviewing the records, the court focused its consideration on whether the petitioners had made out sufficient grounds for bail.

Classification of Contraband and Section 37:

The decisive factor in the court’s analysis was the classification of the seized Ganja quantity. Referring to the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E) dated October 19, 2001, at Sl. No. 55, the court noted:

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

Since the seized quantity was 1 Kg and 380 grams, it falls between the small and commercial quantities and was thus classified as an Intermediate Quantity.

The court then referenced the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Birbal Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (2018 11 SCC 488), which dealt with the grant of bail in cases involving a non-commercial quantity. This precedent affirmed that when the quantity is less than the commercial quantity, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not attract. Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent restrictions on granting bail for offences involving commercial quantities. When Section 37 does not apply, the factors for granting bail become similar to those under normal statutes.

Conclusion on Bail:

Given that the major portion of the investigation was concluded with the seizure of the incriminating article, further custodial interrogation was deemed unnecessary. The court acknowledged the petitioners’ local residence as stated in the cause title and compensated for the prosecution’s apprehension of absconding or tampering with the investigation by imposing stringent conditions.

The court thus answered Point No. 1 (sufficiency of grounds) in the affirmative.

Final Order and Conditions

The petition filed by Deva and Vignesh under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was allowed. The petitioners were enlarged on bail upon executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one surety for the like sum, subject to the following stringent conditions:

1. The petitioners shall give attendance before the concerned Investigating Officer (I.O.) once a month, preferably on the first Monday of every month, between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM, until the filing of the charge sheet or further orders.
2. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
3. They shall not tamper with the witnesses or abscond.
4. They shall co-operate with the I.O. for investigation.
5. They shall not commit a similar offence or any offence while on bail.
6. They shall furnish their photo ID proof and the photo ID proof of their sureties.
7. They shall appear before the court on all hearing dates.
8. Breach of any of the conditions would entail the cancellation of bail.

The order was pronounced in Open Court on September 2, 2023. This judgment underscores the judicial distinction between different quantities of contraband under the NDPS Act and its direct implication on the accused’s right to bail.