BENGALURU – The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) in Bengaluru has granted bail to 23-year-old Indira Prasath S, who was arrested by the Basavanagudi Police for allegedly possessing and attempting to sell ganja. The order, delivered by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), emphasized that the quantity of the seized substance fell into the “intermediate” category, thereby allowing for the relaxation of the stringent bail rigors typically associated with the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The petitioner, a resident of Karur Taluk in Tamil Nadu, had been in judicial custody following a raid conducted in August 2022. He was charged under Section 8(c) and Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Details of the Patrolling Raid and Arrest
The prosecution’s case began on August 28, 2022, when a Police Sub-Inspector from the Basavanagudi Police Station was on patrolling duty in the NR Colony and Gandhi Bazaar areas. According to the police report, at approximately 10:40 AM, the officer received credible information regarding two individuals parked in an Innova car with Tamil Nadu registration (TN 47 AC 5500) near VV Road. The informants suggested that these individuals were attempting to sell contraband to the general public.
Following the receipt of the tip-off, the police obtained the necessary permissions from higher officials and conducted a targeted raid. Upon reaching the spot, they apprehended Indira Prasath S and another individual. A personal search and a search of the vehicle led to the seizure of 1,950 grams (1.95 kg) of ganja. A detailed seizure mahazar was prepared at the scene, and a First Information Report (FIR) was registered under Crime Number 137/2022.
Defense Claims Innocence and Procedural Lapses
Representing the petitioner, the defense counsel argued that Indira Prasath S was a law-abiding citizen with no prior criminal record. The defense contended that the accused was falsely implicated and “implanted” in the case by extraneous elements. A major pillar of the bail application was the alleged non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, specifically citing Sections 41, 42, 50, 52, and 47.
The defense further highlighted that since the quantity seized was not a “commercial quantity,” and because the offense did not carry the penalty of death or life imprisonment, the petitioner should be entitled to bail. It was also noted that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner for his family in Tamil Nadu and was willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.
Judicial Reasoning: Intermediate Quantity and Precedents
In the analysis of the case, Judge B.S. Jayashree focused on the weight of the seized contraband. According to the Ministry of Finance Notification S.O.1055(E), the classification for ganja is as follows:
- Small Quantity: Up to 1,000 grams (1 kg)
- Commercial Quantity: 20 kilograms and above
- Intermediate Quantity: Between 1 kg and 20 kg
The court noted that the 1,950 grams seized in this case qualifies as an intermediate quantity. The Judge relied on the Supreme Court of India precedent in Birbal Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (2018), which held that for non-commercial quantities where the accused is not involved in other crimes, bail should be considered during the pendency of the trial.
The court observed that because the quantity was below the commercial threshold, the strict rigors of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985—which makes bail nearly impossible in large-scale trafficking cases—did not apply. In such instances, bail applications are treated similarly to regular criminal cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Conditions of the Bail Order
The court concluded that as the major portion of the investigation was complete and the contraband already seized, custodial interrogation was no longer required. The petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was allowed subject to the following eight conditions:
- Personal Bond: The petitioner must execute a personal bond of 1,00,000 rupees with two sureties for the like sum.
- Monthly Attendance: The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer once a month (preferably on the first Monday) until the filing of the charge sheet.
- Jurisdictional Restriction: The petitioner cannot leave the court’s jurisdiction without prior permission.
- Witness Protection: The petitioner must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or attempt to abscond.
- Investigation Cooperation: The accused must cooperate fully with the Investigating Officer for any further investigative needs.
- No Repeat Offenses: The petitioner is prohibited from committing similar offenses or any other crimes while on bail.
- Identity Proof: The petitioner and his sureties must furnish valid photo ID and residential address proof to the court.
- Court Appearance: The petitioner must appear before the court on every scheduled hearing date.
The judge warned that any breach of these conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek the cancellation of the bail. The order underscores the legal distinction between users or small-scale distributors and large-scale traffickers under Indian narcotics law.