In a significant legal development, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS cases in Bengaluru has granted bail to 22-year-old Ravi G, also known as Thippe Ravi, who was arrested in connection with an alleged drug peddling case. The decision, delivered by Judge Smt. B.S. Jayashree on January 7, 2023, centered on the classification of the seized narcotic substance under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

Incident at Shankarnag Bus Stop

The case against Ravi G (the petitioner) originated from a suo-moto action taken by the Basaveshwaranagar Police. According to the prosecution, on December 14, 2022, a Head Constable received credible intelligence that an individual was selling Ganja near the Indira Canteen at the Shankarnag Bus Station in Kamalanagar.

Following the intelligence report, the police mounted surveillance at the spot. After confirming the suspect’s activities, a formal report was prepared, and a case was registered in Crime No. 202/2022. Subsequently, with permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), a raid was conducted at approximately 7:10 PM. The police apprehended Ravi G and recovered a bag containing 2 kilograms and 50 grams of Ganja. The accused was arrested, produced before the court, and remanded to judicial custody.

Arguments for Bail: Innocence and Procedural Lapses

Represented by his counsel, Ravi G argued that he was an innocent citizen who had been falsely implicated in the crime at the instance of extraneous elements. The defense vehemently contended that no contraband was actually seized from the petitioner’s conscious possession and that he was being “planted” in the case by the complainant police.

A major pillar of the defense’s argument was the alleged non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, specifically Section 50, which governs the conditions under which a personal search of a person is conducted. The counsel further argued that the quantity seized (2.05 kg) was not a “commercial quantity” and that the petitioner, being the sole breadwinner of his family with no prior criminal antecedents, deserved to be released on bail pending trial.

Prosecution’s Opposition: Habitual Drug Dealing

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail petition, characterizing Ravi G as a habitual drug dealer. The state argued that the accused was caught red-handed with a narcotic substance and that a detailed mahazar (seizure memo) documented the recovery. The prosecution expressed fears that if released, the petitioner might abscond, hamper the ongoing investigation, or involve himself in similar illegal activities. They highlighted that the offense carries a potential rigorous imprisonment of up to 10 years.

The Court’s Reasoning: Intermediate Quantity and Section 37

In reaching its conclusion, the court meticulously analyzed the quantity of the seized drug. Under the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification, the legal thresholds for Ganja are strictly defined:

• Small Quantity: Up to 1,000 grams (1 kg).
• Commercial Quantity: 20 kilograms or more.

The court observed that the 2 kilograms and 50 grams seized in this case qualifies as an “intermediate quantity.” This distinction is critical because the stringent “rigors of Section 37” of the NDPS Act—which make bail nearly impossible for commercial quantities—do not apply to intermediate amounts.

Judge B.S. Jayashree cited the Supreme Court precedent in Birbal Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, where it was held that for non-commercial quantities where the accused is not involved in other cases, bail should be considered. The court noted that the major portion of the investigation was concluded, the incriminatory articles were already seized, and further custodial interrogation was not warranted.

Conditions for Release

Granting the petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., the court ordered Ravi G to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum. To ensure his cooperation with the legal process, the court imposed the following conditions:

• The petitioner must report to the Investigating Officer once a month (on the first Monday) until the charge sheet is filed.
• He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
• He is strictly prohibited from tampering with witnesses or absconding.
• He must cooperate fully with the investigation and attend all court hearing dates.
• He must furnish photo ID proof and local address proof for himself and his sureties.

The court warned that any breach of these conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek the cancellation of his bail. With this order, the court balanced the need for a thorough investigation with the petitioner’s right to liberty given the non-commercial nature of the alleged offense.