The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances in Bengaluru has granted bail to 20-year-old Sameer, who was arrested by the Vyalikaval Police for alleged possession of ganja. The court, presided over by Special Judge Smt. B.S. Jayashree, ruled that the quantity of the seized narcotic fell into the “intermediate” category, making the petitioner eligible for bail under standard legal principles rather than the more restrictive provisions applied to large-scale drug trafficking.

The petitioner, a resident of Koramangala, was identified as the accused in Crime Number 99/2022. The legal proceedings were initiated following a police raid conducted in Malleswaram in late August 2022.

Case Background and Police Action

The prosecution’s case originated on August 22, 2022, when a Police Sub-Inspector at the Vyalikaval Police Station received credible information regarding drug activity. The tip-off suggested that an individual carrying a white plastic bag was selling ganja to the public on Ayyappa Temple Road, 17th Cross, Malleswaram.

Upon obtaining permission from higher authorities to conduct a raid, the police team arrived at the location and apprehended Sameer. During a personal search, officers reportedly discovered and seized 1 kilogram and 130 grams of ganja. A detailed seizure report, known as a mahazar, was prepared at the spot. Sameer was subsequently arrested and produced before a jurisdictional Magistrate, who remanded him to judicial custody.

Arguments from the Defense and Prosecution

The counsel representing Sameer argued that the 20-year-old was innocent and had been falsely implicated by the police. The defense contended that Sameer was unaware of any seized drugs and that the police had failed to comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards outlined in Sections 41, 42, 50, and 52 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. These sections mandate specific protocols for searches, seizures, and the documentation of arrests to prevent the planting of evidence.

The defense also emphasized that the quantity seized did not constitute a “commercial quantity” and that Sameer had no prior criminal record. It was further argued that Sameer is the sole breadwinner for his family, and his continued detention would cause them significant hardship.

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application, asserting that the accused was caught red-handed with a narcotic substance. The prosecution argued that the offence carries a potential sentence of up to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and characterized the petitioner as a habitual dealer. They expressed concerns that if released, Sameer might abscond or attempt to influence the ongoing investigation.

Judicial Analysis of Contraband Quantity

The court’s decision hinged on the specific weight of the drugs seized. Under the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification dated October 19, 2001, the thresholds for ganja are strictly defined: 1,000 grams (1 kilogram) is considered a “small quantity,” while 20 kilograms or more is considered a “commercial quantity.”

Judge B.S. Jayashree noted that the 1.13 kilograms involved in this case is slightly above the “small” threshold but significantly below the “commercial” threshold, placing it in the “intermediate quantity” category. The court cited the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Birbal Prasad vs. State of Bihar (2018). In that case, the Apex Court held that for non-commercial quantities, the accused should generally be released on bail pending trial, especially if they are not involved in other criminal cases.

The court observed that because the quantity was not “commercial,” the “rigors of Section 37” of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act—which usually requires the court to have reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty before granting bail—did not apply. Instead, the petition was treated similarly to those filed under the standard provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion and Bail Conditions

The court found that the investigation was largely complete as the contraband had already been secured. Given that the offence is not punishable by death or life imprisonment and the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru, the judge concluded that stringent conditions would suffice to ensure his appearance at trial.

Sameer was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for 1,00,000 Rupees with one surety for the same amount. The court imposed the following conditions:

1. The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer once a month, preferably on the first Monday, until the charge sheet is filed.
2. He is prohibited from leaving the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
3. He must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or abscond.
4. He must cooperate fully with the Investigating Officer for the duration of the case.
5. He is strictly prohibited from committing any similar offences while on bail.
6. He must furnish photo identification and local address proof for himself and his surety.
7. He must appear before the court on all hearing dates.

The court concluded by stating that any breach of these conditions would lead to the immediate cancellation of his bail.