Bengaluru Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Nithin C M in Kempapura Agrahara Ganja and Arms Case

BENGALURU – The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to 24-year-old Nithin C.M. in connection with a drug trafficking and illegal arms case registered by the Kempapura Agrahara Police. The court, presided over by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, ruled that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient material to link the petitioner directly to the alleged crime beyond the verbal statement of a co-accused.

The legal proceedings involve Crime No. 153/2022, which includes charges under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and Section 25-1(B)(b) of the Arms Act, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner, a resident of RPC Layout in Vijayanagara, approached the court seeking protection from arrest, maintaining his innocence and claiming he was falsely implicated.

Details of the Police Raid and Arrests

The case originated from a police operation conducted on September 24, 2022. According to the police report, the Sub-Inspector of Kempapura Agrahara Police Station received credible information regarding an assembly of individuals, including a rowdy sheeter named Sagar alias Chinnu, armed with deadly weapons at a park road in Telecom Layout.

Upon arriving at the scene, the police surrounded an auto-rickshaw. While three individuals were apprehended at the spot, one person managed to flee. The police alleged that the person who escaped was Nithin C.M., the present petitioner. During the search of the vehicle, the police seized deadly weapons and a quantity of ganja weighing 1 kilogram and 50 grams.

Following the arrest of Accused Nos. 1 to 3, the investigating agency claimed that the primary accused identified Nithin as a collaborator in the crime. However, the defense argued that this “identification” was merely a tool used by the police to implant the petitioner in the case without any corroborative evidence.

Arguments Presented by Legal Counsel

Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Srinivas C., argued that Nithin is an innocent citizen with deep roots in the society and no prior criminal record. The defense emphasized that the recovery of the contraband was made exclusively from Accused No. 1 and that no drugs or weapons were found in the petitioner’s possession. They further contended that being named by a co-accused during a police interrogation does not constitute sufficient legal ground for arrest under the stringent NDPS laws.

The prosecution, represented by the Public Prosecutor, strongly opposed the bail plea. They labeled the petitioner as a habitual drug dealer and expressed concerns that if granted anticipatory bail, he would abscond or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. The state argued that the recovery of weapons alongside narcotics indicated a heinous nature of crime that necessitated custodial interrogation.

Judicial Analysis: Intermediate Quantity and Lack of Nexus

The court’s decision hinged on two primary factors: the quantity of the seized drug and the quality of evidence linking the petitioner to the crime. Under the NDPS Act, the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue provides specific thresholds for “small,” “intermediate,” and “commercial” quantities of prohibited substances.

The court noted that for Ganja, 1,000 grams constitutes a small quantity, while 20 kilograms constitutes a commercial quantity. The 1.05 kilograms seized in this case falls into the “intermediate quantity” category. Legally, intermediate quantities do not attract the severe bail restrictions found under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which are typically reserved for commercial quantities.

Furthermore, the Judge observed that the investigating agency had failed to place any substantial material before the court to demonstrate Nithin’s involvement in drug trafficking. “At this stage, the investigating agency has failed to place any material before this court to show that the present petitioner is doing drug trafficking,” the order stated. The court found that since the incriminatory articles were already in police custody, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not warranted.

Terms of the Anticipatory Bail

Granting the petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., the court directed that in the event of his arrest, Nithin C.M. shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties. To safeguard the investigation, the court imposed several strict conditions:

The petitioner must not threaten or tamper with any prosecution witnesses.
He must mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer on the first Sunday of every month between 10:00 am and 5:00 pm until the charge sheet is filed.
He is prohibited from leaving the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission until the conclusion of the trial.
He must attend all court hearing dates without fail.
He is strictly prohibited from committing any similar offenses while on bail.

The court warned that any breach of these conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek the cancellation of his bail. The ruling ensures that while the investigation proceeds, the petitioner’s liberty is protected against detention based solely on the uncorroborated statements of co-accused individuals.