The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) in Bengaluru has granted bail to 40-year-old Sushanth Malik, who was arrested by the Marathahalli Police for alleged possession of cannabis. The order, delivered by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, Special Judge (NDPS), emphasized that because the quantity of the seized drug fell below the “commercial” threshold, the stringent restrictions of the NDPS Act were relaxed, allowing for the petitioner’s release under specific judicial conditions.

The petitioner, a resident of Kalena Agrahara and originally from Odisha, had been in judicial custody following a police raid in August 2022. He was charged under Section 20(b) and Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Details of the Marathahalli Police Raid

The case against Sushanth Malik originated on August 16, 2022. According to the police report, the Marathahalli Police received credible intelligence at approximately 11:00 AM regarding an individual selling ganja on the footpath near Royal Bar on Kaadubeesanahalli Main Road. After obtaining the necessary permissions from superior officers, a raiding team reached the spot around 3:15 PM.

The police observed a man moving suspiciously, allegedly attempting to sell contraband to the public. Upon apprehending him at 3:25 PM, the individual identified himself as Sushanth Malik. During the subsequent search, the police recovered 3 kilograms and 200 grams of ganja. The accused reportedly admitted to procuring the substance from his native state of Odisha to sell it to students and the general public in Bengaluru.

Legal Arguments and the “Intermediate Quantity” Factor

During the bail hearing, the counsel for the petitioner argued that Malik was an innocent citizen with no prior criminal record. The defense contended that the police had failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which governs personal searches. Furthermore, it was argued that as the sole bread earner of his family, his continued detention would cause immense hardship.

The prosecution strongly opposed the bail, labeling Malik a “habitual drug dealer” and arguing that the seizure of 3.2 kilograms of ganja was a serious offense punishable by up to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

However, the court’s decision turned on the specific weight of the contraband. Under the Ministry of Finance Notification S.O.1055(E), for ganja:

• Small Quantity: Up to 1 kilogram
• Commercial Quantity: 20 kilograms or more
• Intermediate Quantity: Anything between 1 kilogram and 20 kilograms

Judicial Reasoning and the Birbal Prasad Precedent

Judge B.S. Jayashree noted that the 3.2 kilograms seized in this case qualifies as an “intermediate quantity.” The court relied on the Supreme Court of India’s precedent in Birbal Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (2018), which held that when the quantity involved is non-commercial, the rigors of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, do not apply.

Section 37 typically mandates that a court must be satisfied that the accused is “not guilty” before granting bail in commercial cases. In Malik’s case, since the quantity was intermediate, the court applied the standard bail principles of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The judge observed that since the drugs were already seized and the voluntary statement recorded, custodial interrogation was no longer necessary.

Terms of Enlargement on Bail

The court allowed the petition and ordered Malik’s release upon the execution of a personal bond of 1,00,000 rupees with two sureties of the same amount. To ensure his presence during the trial, the court imposed the following eight conditions:

1. The petitioner must mark his attendance at the Marathahalli Police Station on the first Monday of every month between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM.
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 fully cooperate with the investigating officer.
5. He is strictly prohibited from committing any similar offenses while on bail.
6. He must furnish a photo ID and local address proof for himself and his sureties.
7. He must appear before the court on every hearing date.
8. Any breach of these conditions will lead to the immediate cancellation of his bail.

This ruling clarifies that while the state remains vigilant against drug trafficking, the judicial system maintains a distinction between small-scale possession and commercial trafficking to ensure the fair application of the law.