The Special NDPS Court in Bengaluru has granted bail to 45-year-old R Gopal Krishna, who was arrested by the Viveknagar Police for the alleged possession of 4 kilograms and 250 grams of ganja. The order, delivered by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS, emphasized that since the seized quantity was “intermediate” and not “commercial,” the stringent restrictions on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not applicable.

The petitioner, R Gopal Krishna, a resident of Uttarahalli in Bengaluru South, was apprehended on December 25, 2022. According to the police report, the Viveknagar Police received credible information about a person selling narcotics near G-corp Apartment in the ST Bed layout of Koramangala. Upon conducting a raid, the police surrounded a suspected individual on a two-wheeler and, upon checking his bag, recovered the contraband. The accused was subsequently remanded to judicial custody.

Legal Definitions: Small vs. Commercial Quantity

A primary factor in the court’s decision was the classification of the seized drug’s weight. Under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, and the relevant Ministry of Finance notifications, the legal thresholds for ganja are strictly defined to determine the severity of the offense.

The court noted that for ganja, 1,000 grams (1 kg) is considered a small quantity, while 20 kilograms is classified as a commercial quantity. Because the 4.25 kilograms seized in this case falls between these two benchmarks, it is legally defined as an “intermediate quantity.”

Judicial Reasoning and Precedents

In the bail hearing, the counsel for Gopal Krishna argued that the petitioner was innocent, the sole breadwinner for his family, and had been falsely implicated. It was also contended that the mandatory search procedures under Section 50 of the NDPS Act had not been followed.

The prosecution opposed the bail, labeling the petitioner as a “habitual drug dealer” and arguing that the offense carries a punishment of up to 10 years in prison. They expressed concerns that the accused might abscond if released.

Judge B.S. Jayashree, however, relied on the Supreme Court precedent of Birbal Prasad vs. State of Bihar (2018). In that case, the Apex Court held that when a non-commercial quantity is involved and there is no evidence of the accused being involved in other cases, bail should generally be considered pending trial.

The judge observed that the “rigors of Section 37” of the NDPS Act—which make it extremely difficult for an accused to get bail in commercial quantity cases—do not apply here. When the quantity is intermediate, the court treats the bail petition under regular criminal law standards unless exceptional circumstances are presented by the prosecution.

Conclusion and Conditions of Release

The court concluded that since the incriminatory articles had already been seized and the petitioner’s voluntary statement had been recorded, custodial interrogation was no longer required. The judge noted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru and his appearance at trial could be secured through strict conditions.

The court allowed the petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. and ordered the release of R Gopal Krishna upon the execution of a personal bond of Rs 1,00,000 with two sureties of the like sum. The release is subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer once a month, specifically on the first Monday, until the charge sheet is filed.
2. He is prohibited from leaving the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
3. He must not tamper with witnesses or abscond from the legal process.
4. He must cooperate fully with the investigation.
5. He is strictly prohibited from committing any similar offenses while out on bail.
6. He must furnish photo identification and local address proof for himself and his sureties.
7. He must appear before the court on all scheduled hearing dates.

The court warned that any breach of these conditions would lead to the immediate cancellation of his bail. This ruling highlights the judicial distinction between various scales of drug offenses and the application of Supreme Court guidelines in balancing public safety with individual liberty.