The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances cases in Bengaluru has granted bail to Sadul Aslam, a 26-year-old native of Assam, who was arrested by the Beguru Police for allegedly possessing and selling Ganja. The order, delivered on March 21, 2024, by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, emphasized that the quantity of the seized contraband did not meet the “commercial” threshold, thereby relaxing the stringent bail conditions usually associated with drug trafficking cases.
Background of the Police Raid and Arrest
The legal proceedings against Sadul Aslam began following a report submitted by the Police Sub-Inspector of Beguru Police Station. According to the prosecution’s allegations, on March 6, 2024, at approximately 11:30 AM, police officers were on patrolling duty when they received specific intelligence from an informant. The information suggested that a person was actively selling Ganja to the public in a vacant space located opposite the Regional Transport Office in Chetana Layout, Devarachikkanahalli.
Upon receiving this information, the patrolling officer notified his superiors and obtained the necessary permission to conduct a raid. A team was formed, and independent witnesses, known as panchas, were secured to oversee the process. The team arrived at the designated spot where the informant identified the suspect. The police apprehended the individual, who identified himself as Sadul Aslam, originally from the Doboka District of Assam but currently residing in JP Nagar, Bengaluru.
During the search, the accused admitted to carrying Ganja. The police seized the contraband and weighed it at the scene, recording a total of 2 kilograms and 270 grams of Ganja. A detailed seizure mahazar (official record) was drawn up, and the accused was subsequently taken into custody and remanded to judicial quarters under Crime Number 71/2024.
Arguments Presented by the Defense
Sadul Aslam’s legal representative argued that the petitioner was an innocent, law-abiding citizen who had been falsely implicated in the case. The defense contended that the police had “planted” the drugs on the petitioner and that he had no knowledge of the seized substance. A major point of the defense was that the mandatory procedures for search and seizure outlined under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, were not strictly followed by the investigating agency.
Furthermore, the counsel emphasized that the quantity of Ganja seized—2.270 kilograms—did not constitute a “commercial quantity” under the law. The defense argued that since the investigation was largely complete and the petitioner had a permanent residence, he should be released on bail, promising to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.
Prosecution’s Opposition and the Legal Threshold
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application, categorizing the offense as heinous. The prosecution argued that the 2.270 kilograms of Ganja was an incriminatory article seized directly from the petitioner’s custody. They expressed concerns that if released, Aslam might engage in similar activities or tamper with prosecution witnesses. The state further argued that drug peddling to the younger generation ruins lives and careers, justifying a need for continued detention while the investigation remained pending.
Under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the severity of the punishment and the difficulty of obtaining bail are tied to the quantity of the drug involved. According to the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E), the classifications for Ganja are:
- Small Quantity: Up to 1,000 grams (1 Kilogram)
- Commercial Quantity: 20 Kilograms and above
The Court’s Rationale for Granting Bail
In her analysis, Judge B.S. Jayashree noted that the 2.270 kilograms of Ganja seized from the petitioner falls under the category of “intermediate quantity.” This distinction is critical because Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985—which prohibits the granting of bail unless there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty—only applies to cases involving commercial quantities.
The court cited a significant precedent from the Supreme Court of India in the case of Birbal Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (2018), where it was held that in cases involving non-commercial quantities, the accused should generally be released on bail pending trial, provided they are not involved in other criminal cases.
The Judge observed that when the quantity is less than commercial, the rigorous restrictions of Section 37 do not apply, and the court may consider bail as it would under the regular provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Since the major portion of the investigation was concluded and the offense was not punishable by death or life imprisonment, the court found that custodial interrogation was no longer warranted.
Conditions of the Bail Order
The court allowed the petition and ordered the release of Sadul Aslam on a personal bond of 100,000 Rupees with one surety for the same amount. To ensure the petitioner’s cooperation with the ongoing legal process, the court imposed the following strict conditions:
- The petitioner must attend the office of the Investigating Officer once a month, specifically on the first Monday of every month, until the charge sheet is filed.
- The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
- The petitioner is strictly prohibited from tampering with witnesses or absconding.
- The petitioner must fully cooperate with the investigating officer for further inquiries.
- The petitioner shall not commit any similar offense or any other criminal act while on bail.
- The petitioner must furnish his photo identification, local address proof, and the identification of his sureties to the court.
- The petitioner must appear before the court on all designated hearing dates.
The court warned that any breach of these conditions would lead to the immediate cancellation of the bail. This order serves as a reminder of the judicial balance between the severity of narcotics laws and the protection of individual liberties in cases involving non-commercial drug quantities.