The Special Court for NDPS cases in Bengaluru has granted bail to two 21-year-old youths, Rajesh and Maqsood S., who were arrested earlier this month for alleged possession of cannabis. Smt. B.S. Jayashree, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS, delivered the order on January 27, 2023, observing that the quantity of the seized drug was not of a “commercial” nature, which allowed for a more lenient judicial view.
The petitioners, identified as Rajesh, a resident of Kamaraja Road, and Maqsood S., a resident of Moodalapalya, were languishing in judicial custody following their arrest by the Vijayanagar Police. The case, registered under Crime No. 3/2023, involves offenses punishable under Sections 8(c) and 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
Details of the Arrest and Police Raid
The prosecution’s case began on January 13, 2023. According to the police report, a Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) from Vijayanagar Police Station was on patrolling duty when he received a tip-off from a credible source. The informer stated that five individuals were planning to gather at Gandhi Maidana in Vijayanagar at around noon to sell narcotics.
Acting on this information, the police obtained the necessary permissions and set up a trap at the location. At the specified time, five persons arrived at the spot in an auto-rickshaw. The police team surrounded and apprehended them. Upon questioning and searching a bag found in their possession, the officers recovered 1 kilogram and 400 grams of ganja. The accused were subsequently arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
Arguments for the Defense: Claims of False Implication
The legal counsel for Rajesh and Maqsood S. argued that the youths were law-abiding citizens with no prior criminal records. The defense contended that the petitioners were “falsely implanted” in the case at the behest of extraneous elements and were completely unaware of any illegal substances.
A significant part of the defense argument rested on procedural lapses. The counsel claimed that the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which governs the conditions for personal search, were not strictly followed. Furthermore, they highlighted that there were no independent eyewitnesses to confirm that the petitioners were actually attempting to sell the contraband. As the sole breadwinners for their respective families, the defense argued that continued incarceration would cause undue hardship.
Prosecution Resistance and Judicial Analysis
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail plea, labeling the petitioners as “habitual drug dealers.” The state argued that the seizure of 1.4 kg of ganja was a serious offense punishable by up to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution expressed concerns that if released, the accused might abscond or attempt to hamper the ongoing investigation.
However, the court’s decision hinged on the specific weight of the seized drug. Judge B.S. Jayashree referenced the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification, which defines “small” and “commercial” quantities for various narcotics. For ganja, any amount up to 1,000 grams (1 kg) is a small quantity, while 20 kilograms or more is considered a commercial quantity.
The court noted that the 1.4 kg seized in this case falls into the “intermediate quantity” category. Relying on the Supreme Court precedent in the case of Birbal Prasad vs. State of Bihar, the judge observed that when the quantity is non-commercial, the strict rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act—which makes bail very difficult to obtain—do not apply.
Balancing Society’s Interest and Personal Liberty
The court observed that because the contraband had already been seized and the petitioners’ voluntary statements recorded, custodial interrogation was no longer necessary. Since the offense was not punishable by death or life imprisonment and the petitioners were permanent residents of Bengaluru, the court found it fit to grant bail under specific conditions.
Terms of the Bail Order
The court ordered the release of Rajesh and Maqsood S. upon the execution of a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 each, along with two sureties of the same amount. The following conditions were imposed to ensure their cooperation:
- Attendance: The petitioners must appear before the Investigating Officer once a month (on the first Monday) until the charge sheet is filed.
- Travel Restrictions: They are not permitted to leave the court’s jurisdiction without prior permission.
- Conduct: They must not tamper with witnesses, abscond, or commit any similar offenses while on bail.
- Identification: They must provide valid photo ID and address proof for themselves and their sureties.
- Court Presence: They must attend all scheduled court hearing dates.
The court warned that any breach of these conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek the immediate cancellation of their bail.