In a significant ruling concerning the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, a Special NDPS Court in Bengaluru has granted bail to 19-year-old Sabdithi Manoj Kumar. The petitioner, a native of Andhra Pradesh, was arrested by the Excise Department in connection with the seizure of 4.5 kilograms of Ganja near the Kalasipalya bus stand. The decision, delivered by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, Special Judge for NDPS cases, hinged on the legal classification of the seized contraband as an “intermediate quantity” rather than a “commercial quantity.”

The legal proceedings originated from Crime No. 6/2022-23, registered by the Chamarajpet Range Excise Police Station. The petitioner had been in judicial custody since his arrest in mid-August 2022, facing charges under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) and Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The Kalasipalya Bus Stand Sting Operation

According to the prosecution’s case, the incident took place on August 13, 2022. An Inspector of Excise from the Chamarajpet Range received credible intelligence at approximately 6:00 p.m. regarding a person carrying narcotics near the Chandraprakash Hotel at the Kalasipalya bus stand.

Upon reaching the spot, the excise officials intercepted the 19-year-old petitioner, who was carrying an American Tourister bag. A search of the bag revealed 4 kilograms and 500 grams of dry Ganja, including leaves and flowers. The officials conducted a spot seizure under a detailed mahazar (seizure memo) and subsequently produced Manoj Kumar before the jurisdictional magistrate, who remanded him to judicial custody.

Arguments Presented for the Petitioner

The defense counsel, Sri Kumaregowda H.N.C., argued that Sabdithi Manoj Kumar was an innocent young man who had been falsely implicated at the instance of extraneous elements. The defense raised several critical points to support the bail plea:

• Procedural Lapses: The counsel contended that mandatory provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985—specifically Sections 41, 42, 50, and 52 regarding search and seizure procedures—were not strictly followed.
• Lack of Evidence: The defense argued that there were no independent eye witnesses to the alleged sale of the contraband.
• Family Status: It was submitted that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and has no prior criminal antecedents.
• Non-Commercial Quantity: A pivotal argument was that the weight of the seized Ganja did not reach the threshold of a “commercial quantity,” thereby making the stringent bail restrictions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act inapplicable.

Prosecution Objections and Legal Thresholds

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application, categorizing the petitioner as a habitual dealer. The state argued that the seizure of 4.5 kilograms of narcotics constitutes a serious offence punishable by up to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a significant fine. The prosecution expressed concerns that if released, the petitioner, being a resident of Andhra Pradesh, might abscond or tamper with witnesses, thereby hampering the investigation.

Judicial Analysis: Intermediate Quantity vs. Commercial Quantity

Judge B.S. Jayashree’s analysis focused on the quantity of the drug in relation to the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E). According to the notification:

1. Small Quantity for Ganja: Up to 1,000 grams (1 Kilogram).
2. Commercial Quantity for Ganja: 20 Kilograms and above.
3. Intermediate Quantity: Anything between 1 Kilogram and 20 Kilograms.

The court noted that the seized 4.5 kilograms of Ganja falls squarely into the “intermediate quantity” category. The judge referenced a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Birbal Prasad vs. State of Bihar (2018), where the Apex Court granted bail for the seizure of 14 kilograms of Ganja, noting it as a non-commercial quantity.

The court observed that since the quantity was not commercial, the rigorous “twin conditions” for bail under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, do not strictly apply. Instead, the court can consider the application based on regular bail principles under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Verdict and Bail Conditions

The court concluded that since the contraband had already been seized and the petitioner’s voluntary statement recorded, custodial interrogation was no longer necessary. To address the prosecution’s fears of the accused absconding, the court imposed a set of stringent conditions.

The bail was granted upon the execution of a personal bond for 1,00,000 Rupees with two sureties of the same amount. The conditions include:

1. Mandatory Attendance: The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer on the first Monday of every month between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. until the charge sheet is filed.
2. Geographical Restrictions: He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
3. Conduct: He is prohibited from tampering with witnesses, absconding, or committing any similar offences while on bail.
4. Identification: He must furnish photo ID and local address proof for himself and his sureties.
5. Court Presence: He must appear before the court on every hearing date without fail.

The court warned that any breach of these conditions would result in the automatic cancellation of the bail. The order effectively balances the 19-year-old’s right to liberty during the trial with the necessity of a fair and uninterrupted investigation.