In a significant legal development involving the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, a Special Court in Bengaluru has granted bail to Rintukumar Das, also known as Bikki. The 24-year-old petitioner, a native of Assam currently residing in the HAL area of Bengaluru, was arrested in connection with the alleged possession and sale of Ganja near a local school.
The order was delivered on December 12, 2022, by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The ruling underscores the critical legal distinction between “intermediate” and “commercial” quantities of prohibited substances and how this classification influences the right to liberty pending trial.
Background of the Arrest and Investigation
The case against Rintukumar Das originated on December 22, 2021. According to the prosecution’s case, the Police Sub-Inspector of the Banasawadi Police Station received credible information at approximately 5:00 PM while on patrolling duty. The intelligence suggested that an individual was selling prohibited narcotics to the public near Jyothi School on Hennuru Main Road.
Following the report, the police mounted surveillance at the spot and observed a person moving suspiciously. The officers surrounded and apprehended the suspect, identifying him as Rintukumar Das. During a subsequent search of his person and a bag in his possession, the police recovered 1 kilogram and 250 grams of Ganja. A detailed mahazar (seizure memo) was drawn at the spot, and the accused was remanded to judicial custody.
Arguments Presented by the Defense
Represented by Sri. Naveen Kumar, the petitioner argued that he was an innocent, law-abiding citizen who had been falsely implicated in the crime. The defense contended that the mandatory procedures stipulated under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act—specifically Section 50, which governs the conditions of a personal search—had not been strictly followed by the investigating officers.
The defense also emphasized the petitioner’s personal circumstances, noting that he had no prior criminal record (bad antecedents) and was the sole breadwinner for his family. Furthermore, they argued that the quantity of Ganja seized was not a “commercial quantity,” which changes the legal requirements for granting bail under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
Prosecution’s Objection and Legal Standpoint
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application, characterizing the offense as heinous and labeling the petitioner as a “habitual drug dealer.” The state argued that a prima facie case existed based on the seizure of 1 kilogram and 250 grams of Ganja and expressed fears that if released, the accused might abscond to his native state of Assam or attempt to tamper with the investigation.
The prosecution noted that the offense is punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, which can carry a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for up to 10 years.
The Court’s Reasoning: Intermediate vs. Commercial Quantity
In evaluating the petition, Judge B.S. Jayashree focused on the weight of the seized substance. According to the Ministry of Finance Notification, the legal thresholds for Ganja are:
- Small Quantity: Up to 1,000 grams (1 kg).
- Commercial Quantity: 20 kilograms or more.
The court observed that 1.250 kilograms of Ganja qualifies as an “intermediate quantity.” This is a pivotal distinction because the stringent “rigors of Section 37” of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, which make bail extremely difficult to obtain, apply primarily to commercial quantities.
The Judge cited the Supreme Court precedent in the case of Birbal Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (2018), where the Apex Court held that in instances of non-commercial quantities where the accused has no prior involvement in similar cases, bail should generally be considered. The court noted that since the investigation was concluded and the charge sheet was already filed (Spl.CC No.1564/2022), the accused’s continued custodial interrogation was no longer warranted.
Final Order and Bail Conditions
Exercising its power under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (which governs the special powers of the High Court or Sessions Court regarding bail), the court allowed the petition. Rintukumar Das was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of the same amount.
The court imposed the following strict conditions to ensure his appearance for trial:
- Attendance: The petitioner must report to the Investigating Officer once a month (on the first Monday) until further notice.
- Jurisdiction: He is prohibited from leaving the court’s jurisdiction without prior permission.
- Witness Protection: He shall not tamper with witnesses or abscond.
- No Recidivism: He must not commit similar offenses while on bail.
- Documentation: He must furnish valid photo identity and local address proof for himself and his sureties.
The court warned that any breach of these conditions would lead to the automatic cancellation of his bail. With this order, the petitioner returns home after nearly a year in custody, while the legal proceedings continue in the Special Court.