The Special Court for NDPS cases in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to 55-year-old Meharunnissa alias Kali and 40-year-old Nayeem alias Nayaz Pasha in connection with a drug peddling case registered at the Byatarayanapura Police Station. The court noted that the petitioners were implicated primarily based on the voluntary statements of co-accused and that the quantity of contraband seized was not “commercial” in nature.
The order was delivered by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS. The petitioners, both residents of Shamanna Garden in Byatarayanapura, had approached the court seeking protection from arrest under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. after being named as Accused No. 3 and 4 in Crime No. 252/2022.
Background of the Byatarayanapura Drug Raid
The case originated on October 17, 2022, when a Police Sub-Inspector from the Byatarayanapura station received credible information regarding drug sales near Huchhappa Park in Chowdappa Layout. Acting on this tip, the police conducted a raid and apprehended two individuals (Accused No. 1 and 2) who were allegedly found in possession of plastic bags containing a ganja-like substance.
Upon weighing the seized contraband, the police confirmed it to be 1.327 kilograms of Ganja. During the subsequent interrogation of the arrested individuals, they reportedly claimed that the Ganja had been supplied to them by Meharunnissa and Nayeem. Based on these voluntary statements, the police arrayed the petitioners as absconding accused and launched a search for them.
Arguments for and Against Bail
Advocate Sri S.S.G., representing the petitioners, argued that Meharunnissa and Nayeem are law-abiding citizens who have been falsely implicated. The defense emphasized that there was no direct recovery of any prohibited substances from the petitioners and that their names were added to the case solely based on the statements of those already in custody. Furthermore, they argued that the 1.327 kilograms of Ganja seized is considered an “intermediate quantity” under the law, not a large-scale commercial quantity.
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petition, labeling the duo as “habitual drug dealers.” The prosecution argued that the offenses under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act are serious and punishable by up to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. They expressed concern that if granted anticipatory bail, the petitioners might abscond, tamper with evidence, or continue their alleged involvement in the illegal narcotic trade.
Court’s Findings and Precedents
In her reasoning, Judge B.S. Jayashree scrutinized the classification of the seized substance. Under the Ministry of Finance notification of 2001, 1000 grams (1 kg) is small quantity, and 20 kg is commercial quantity for Ganja. The 1.327 kg seized in this case was thus categorized as an intermediate quantity.
The court cited a landmark Supreme Court decision, Birbal Prasad vs. State of Bihar (2018), which held that in cases involving non-commercial quantities where the accused is not involved in other criminal cases, bail should generally be considered. The judge noted that the investigating agency had failed to produce any corroborative material connecting the petitioners to the crime beyond the statements of the co-accused.
The judge observed that since the contraband had already been seized from Accused No. 1 and 2, the major portion of the investigation was effectively concluded. Therefore, custodial interrogation of Meharunnissa and Nayeem was deemed unnecessary.
Final Order and Conditions for Release
The court allowed the anticipatory bail petition, directing the Byatarayanapura Police to release the petitioners in the event of their arrest, subject to the execution of a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 each and two sureties of a like sum.
To safeguard the investigation, the court imposed the following strict conditions:
- The petitioners must mark their attendance at the police station every first Sunday of the month until the charge sheet is filed.
- They shall not directly or indirectly threaten witnesses or offer inducements to any person familiar with the facts of the case.
- They are prohibited from leaving the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission until the trial concludes.
- They must not commit any similar offenses while out on bail.
- They must provide valid photo ID proof for themselves and their sureties.
The court warned that any breach of these conditions would lead to the immediate cancellation of the bail. With this order, the petitioners are protected from immediate arrest as the investigation into the local drug distribution network continues.