BENGALURU – The XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS cases in Bengaluru has granted bail to 27-year-old Sathyanarayana, who was arrested by the Adugodi Police for the alleged possession of ganja. The court, presided over by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, ruled that as the quantity of the seized narcotic was “intermediate” and not “commercial,” the accused was entitled to bail under standard legal principles.

The petitioner, a resident of Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, was identified as Accused Number 1 in Crime Number 152/2022. The case involves charges under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

The Police Raid and Contraband Seizure

The legal proceedings began on July 22, 2022, following a report by the Police Sub-Inspector of Adugodi Police Station. According to the prosecution, while on patrolling duty at Hosur-Lashkar Road near the NIANP Compound, officers spotted individuals carrying bags who attempted to flee upon seeing the police.

The police apprehended the suspects, who were identified as natives of Andhra Pradesh. Upon questioning, they admitted the bags contained ganja. A search conducted in the presence of an Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) resulted in the seizure of 7 kilograms and 150 grams of ganja. A detailed seizure report (mahazar) was prepared, and the accused were remanded to judicial custody.

Legal Arguments and Defense Contentions

The petitioner, represented by Advocate Sri C. Srinivasa, maintained his innocence. The defense argued that Sathyanarayana had been falsely implicated and that the police had failed to comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards of the NDPS Act, specifically Section 50, which governs the conditions under which a personal search must be conducted.

The defense further highlighted that the seized article did not constitute a “commercial quantity” and that the petitioner, being the sole breadwinner of his family with no prior criminal record, posed no risk to society.

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea, characterizing the petitioner as a habitual dealer. The state expressed concern that because the petitioner is a native of another state (Andhra Pradesh), he might abscond or hamper the investigation if released.

The Court’s Observations on “Intermediate Quantity”

In evaluating the petition, the court focused on the weight of the seized substance. According to the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification, for ganja, 1,000 grams (1 kg) is considered a “small quantity,” while 20 kilograms is the threshold for a “commercial quantity.”

Judge B.S. Jayashree noted that the 7.15 kilograms seized in this case falls into the “intermediate” category. The court cited the Supreme Court precedent in Birbal Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (2018), which held that in cases of non-commercial quantities where the accused has no other pending cases, bail should generally be granted pending trial.

The court observed that since the quantity was not commercial, the strict “rigors of Section 37” of the NDPS Act—which make bail extremely difficult to obtain—did not apply. “When the quantity is less than commercial quantity, factors become similar to bail petitions under regular statutes,” the judge remarked.

Conditions for Enlargement on Bail

The court allowed the petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ordering the release of Sathyanarayana upon the execution of a personal bond for 1,00,000 rupees with two sureties of the same amount. To ensure the petitioner’s presence during the trial, the court imposed eight specific conditions:

1. The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer once a month (on the first Monday) until the charge sheet is filed.
2. He is strictly 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 remainder of the investigation.
5. He is restricted from committing any similar or new offenses while on bail.
6. He must furnish photo identification and local address proof for himself and his sureties.
7. He must appear before the court on all hearing dates.
8. Any violation of these terms will lead to the cancellation of the bail order.

This ruling emphasizes the judicial distinction between intermediate and commercial quantities of narcotics, ensuring that detention remains a matter of necessity rather than a pre-trial punishment for lesser quantities.