A Special Court in Bengaluru has granted bail to a 25-year-old man, Harshavardhan, who was arrested by the K.P. Agrahara police for allegedly possessing and attempting to sell ganja. The order was passed by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS cases, after determining that the quantity of the seized contraband did not meet the threshold of a commercial quantity under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
The petitioner, Harshavardhan, a resident of Nelamangala Taluk, had been in judicial custody following his arrest in February 2024. The court’s decision to enlarge him on bail marks a significant development in the proceedings of Crime No. 22/2024.
Details of the Arrest and Prosecution Claims
The case began on February 17, 2024, when the Police Sub-Inspector of K.P. Agrahara Police Station received credible information regarding drug peddling activities. According to the police report, an informant alerted the station that a man wearing a black T-shirt and blue half-pants was selling ganja to customers near the Binni Canteen on 14th Main, K.P. Agrahara.
Acting on this tip, the police conducted a raid and apprehended a individual matching the description, later identified as Harshavardhan. Upon searching a bag in his possession, the police allegedly discovered 1 kg and 260 grams of ganja. The contraband was seized under a detailed mahazar, and the accused was booked under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
The prosecution strongly opposed the bail application, arguing that the accused was caught red-handed with incriminatory articles. The Public Prosecutor contended that the offense is a serious one, punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 to 20 years. The prosecution further raised concerns that if released, the accused might tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, or resume the sale of drugs to the younger generation, thereby ruining their careers and lives.
Defense Arguments for Innocence and Procedural Lapses
The defense counsel, Sri Ramanna, presented a different narrative, asserting that Harshavardhan was an innocent, law-abiding citizen who had been falsely implicated in the case. The defense argued that the police had not followed the mandatory procedures for search and seizure as contemplated under the NDPS Act.
A primary pillar of the defense’s argument was the classification of the seized quantity. It was argued that the 1.260 kg of ganja seized was an “intermediate quantity,” falling far below the 20 kg threshold required to be classified as a “commercial quantity.” Because the amount was not commercial, the defense argued that the strict rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act—which makes bail significantly harder to obtain—should not apply. They further stated that the petitioner had no prior criminal record and was a permanent resident of the address provided, minimizing any risk of him absconding.
The Court’s Findings and Legal Reasoning
In its analysis, the Court referred to the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification, which specifies that for ganja, 1 kg is considered a small quantity and 20 kg is considered a commercial quantity. Since the quantity in this case was 1.260 kg, the Court categorized it as an intermediate quantity.
The Judge cited a landmark Supreme Court decision in the case of Birbal Prasad vs. State of Bihar (2018), where the Apex Court held that in instances involving non-commercial quantities where the accused is not involved in other cases, bail should generally be granted pending trial.
The Court observed that since the quantity was not commercial, the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not attracted. Furthermore, the Court noted that the major portion of the investigation was already concluded and that the offense alleged was not punishable by death or life imprisonment. Under these circumstances, the Court found that custodial interrogation was no longer warranted.
Terms and Conditions of the Bail Order
While granting the bail petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., the Court imposed several strict conditions to ensure the petitioner’s cooperation with the legal process. Harshavardhan was ordered to be released upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety for a like sum.
The specific conditions include:
The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer once a month, specifically on the first Monday of every month, until the charge sheet is filed. He is prohibited from leaving the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission. He must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or commit any similar offenses while on bail. He must provide photo ID proof and local address proof for himself and his sureties. He is required to appear before the court on all hearing dates.
The Court warned that any breach of these conditions would lead to the immediate cancellation of his bail. With the granting of this order, the petitioner will be released from judicial custody to await the conclusion of the trial.