In a significant ruling concerning the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, a Special NDPS Court in Bengaluru has granted bail to two individuals, Nandisha and Krishnanayaka, who were arrested for allegedly possessing and selling ganja. The decision, delivered by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, presiding over the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, centered on the classification of the seized contraband as an “intermediate quantity.”
Details of the Rajagopalanagar Police Raid
The legal proceedings originated from an incident on December 17, 2022. According to the prosecution’s case, the Rajagopalanagar Police received credible information regarding the illegal sale of narcotics at a residence in Chamundipura. Acting on this tip, a raiding team, led by a station officer and accompanied by independent witnesses (panchas), proceeded to the location.
Upon arriving at the spot, the police intercepted two men moving suspiciously near a house. The individuals were identified as 27-year-old Nandisha, a resident of Chamundipura, and 27-year-old Krishnanayaka, a resident of Laggere. During the subsequent investigation at the scene, the accused allegedly admitted to storing ganja inside Nandisha’s house. A search of the premises led to the discovery of a bag containing approximately 5.920 kilograms of ganja. The police seized the contraband under a formal mahazar and arrested both individuals, who were later remanded to judicial custody.
Arguments for the Petitioners and the Prosecution
The petitioners, represented by their counsel Sri. MMR, argued that they were law-abiding citizens who had been falsely implicated in the case. The defense contended that the mandatory procedures of the NDPS Act, specifically Section 50 regarding personal searches, were not strictly followed. Furthermore, the defense highlighted that the petitioners were the sole breadwinners for their respective families and had no prior criminal record. Crucially, they argued that the quantity of drugs seized did not meet the “commercial” threshold, which allows for more leniency in bail matters.
The prosecution strongly opposed the bail plea, characterizing the accused as “habitual drug dealers.” The Public Prosecutor argued that the 5.920 kilograms of ganja seized was a significant amount and that the offences carried a potential sentence of up to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. The state expressed concerns that if released, the accused might abscond, tamper with evidence, or continue their involvement in the drug trade.
Understanding the “Intermediate Quantity” Classification
The court’s rationale for granting bail was heavily influenced by the specific weight of the seized drug. Under the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification, the legal thresholds for ganja are as follows:
- Small Quantity: Up to 1,000 grams (1 kg)
- Commercial Quantity: 20 kilograms or more
- Intermediate Quantity: Anything between 1 kg and 20 kg
In this case, the 5.920 kilograms seized fell into the “intermediate” category. Judge B.S. Jayashree noted that when a quantity is less than commercial, the stringent “rigors of Section 37” of the NDPS Act do not apply. Section 37 typically makes it very difficult for an accused to obtain bail unless the court is satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe they are not guilty. For intermediate quantities, the court can apply standard bail principles similar to those found in regular criminal statutes.
The judge cited the Supreme Court precedent of Birbal Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (2018), where the apex court held that in cases involving non-commercial quantities where the accused has no prior record, bail should generally be considered favorably pending trial.
The Court’s Final Order and Conditions of Release
The court concluded that since the major portion of the investigation was complete—specifically the seizure of the incriminatory articles—and the voluntary statements of the accused had been recorded, continued custodial interrogation was not necessary. The judge also observed that the offences were not punishable by death or life imprisonment.
To mitigate the prosecution’s fears of the accused absconding, the court allowed the petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. subject to the following stringent conditions:
- Personal Bond: Each petitioner must execute a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of the same amount.
- Attendance: The petitioners must mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer once a month (on the first Monday) until the charge sheet is filed.
- Jurisdictional Restrictions: They are prohibited from leaving the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
- Conduct: They must not tamper with witnesses, abscond, or commit any similar offences while out on bail.
- Identification: They must furnish valid photo ID and address proof for themselves and their sureties to the court.
The court warned that any breach of these conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek a cancellation of the bail. The order was pronounced in open court on January 4, 2023, marking the end of the petitioners’ initial period of incarceration while they await the formal trial.