IN THE COURT OF THE XXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE & SPL. JUDGE (NDPS), BENGALURU. CCH.33. PRESENT: SMT. B.S. JAYASHREE, LL.M., XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS), BENGALURU. DATED: THIS THE 23 st DAY OF AUGUST 2022 Crl.Misc.No.8054/2022 Petitioners : 1 N. Tharun Kumar, (accused No.1 & 2) S/o. Apparao, Aged about 24 years, Residing at No. 3­60­112, Thagarukavalasa, Bheemli Mandalam Vishakhapattanam District, Andhra Pradesh State. 2 D. Mahesh, S/o. Srinivas Rao, Aged about 24 yearssm, Residing at No. 21­1­91, Gajuvaka, Vishakhapattanam Town, Andhrapradesh (By Sri P.Shivakumar., Adv.) V/S. Respondent : State by Bandepalya PS (By Reptd Public Prosecutor) O R D E R The present petition U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioners to enlarge them on bail, in Cr.No.142/2022 of Bandepalya PS., registered for the offences punishable U/Sec.20(b)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S. Act.

2. The grounds urged by the petitioners for grant of

bail are as under: That the petitioners have never committed or involved in the alleged crime either directly or indirectly but they have been falsely implicated in the above case. The petitioners submit that the voluntary statements were drawn by the police at their whims and fancies to suit their case. No incriminating articles were recovered after getting the custody of these accused. The mandatory provisions U/s.42(2), 50 and 57 of NDPS Act has not been complied. The I.O has not mentioned the exact quantity of the alleged ganja seized from the accused in FIR or in the complaint. Though the alleged offence is non bailable, but is neither punishable with imprisonment for life or death sentence. The petitioners is ready and willing to abide by any CCH­33 Crl.Misc.No.8054/2022 3 conditions imposed by this court in the event of grant of bail. They are ready to offer surety for their due appearance before this court. Hence, sought to grant bail.

3. The objection raised by the prosecution is that the

investigating agency has seized 1 kgs 980 grams of ganja from the possession of petitioners herein. The petitioners are found to be in possession of narcotic drug. A detailed mahazar is drawn in the spot. Personal search is conducted. The offence alleged against the petitioners is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall extend upto 1 year. There is a prima­facie case available against the petitioners. They are habitual drug dealers. In the event of grant of bail, they would abscond and may hamper the investigation. Hence, sought to reject the bail plea of petitioners.

4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the

records.

5. The points that arise for my consideration are as here under:

1. Whether petitioners have made out sufficient grounds to enlarge them on bail?

2. What order?

6. My findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per the final order for the following:

REASONS

7. POINT NO.1:­ A report submitted by PSI of Hebbala

PSI., who is the complainant in this case. The contents of the report is as here under:­ a) That on 8.8.2022 at about 8.00 PM., when the complainant PSI was discharging his duties in the police station he has received a credible information that opposite to Sri Ayyappa temple road, near Somasandrapalya lake, Somasandrapalya some persons are selling ganja to the public. On receipt of the information he has informed to his higher officer, obtained permission and thereafter, he along with his staff and panchas went to the spot and CCH­33 Crl.Misc.No.8054/2022 5 apprehended the accused Nos.1 and 2. On enquiry they revealed their names and addresses. They were holding one plastic cover. On enquiry they revealed that they are in possession of ganja. When the bag containing ganja was weighed, it is found to be 1 Kgs., 980 grams. A detail seizure panchanama was drawn. Thereafter, he has prepared a detail report which is the basis to register the case against the accused No.1 and 2 in Cr.No.142/2022 for the offences punishable U/Sec.20(b)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S. Act. The present petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in the case.

8. It is argued by the learned counsel for petitioners

that they have planted in the case by the complainant police they are unaware of seized drug. 1Kg 980 grams of ganja is seized from the possession of the petitioners is a small quantity. The mandatory provisions of Sec.41, 42, 50, 52 and 47 of the Act are not complied. They are permanent residents of the address given in the cause title. In the event of grant of bail they are ready to abide by the conditions which are being imposed by this court.

9. The prosecution opposed the bail plea on the

ground that the offence alleged against the petitioners is punishable upto 10 years and with fine. Ganja seized from the possession of petitioners is intermediate quantity. In the event of grant of bail they are going to abscond and may hamper investigation.

10. On careful analysis of rival contentions and the

prosecution papers available on record, the investigating agency seized 1 Kg 980 grams of ganja under the seizure panchanama. The petitioners are in judicial custody since the date of his arrest i.e., from 8.8.2022. On looking to the seizure panchanama the drugs seized is weighing 1 kg 980 grams of ganja. As per specification of small and commercial quantity of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance issued by Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E) dated 19.10.2001 at Sl.No.55 the narcotic drug­ganja 1000 grams is small quantity and 20 Kgs., is commercial quantity. In this case CCH­33 Crl.Misc.No.8054/2022 7 the quantum of ganja seized is 1 Kg 980 grams of Ganja which is an intermediate quantity.

11. The petitioners herein are not having previous

criminal antecedents. They are not habitual offenders. The major portion of investigation in the case is concluded as the incriminatory article is already seized. The offence alleged against the petitioners are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Further custodial interrogation is not warranted. As per the information provided by the petitioners they are permanently residing in the address shown in the cause title. The apprehension of the prosecution that they may abscond and may protract the trial could be compensated by imposing stringent conditions. In the result, I answer the point for consideration in the affirmative.

12. Point No.2:­ In the result, I proceed to pass

following:

ORDER

The Petition filed by the petitioners U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed. The petitioners are enlarged on bail on executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/­ each with two sureties for the like sum with following conditions.

1. The petitioners shall give attendance before the concerned I.O., once in a month i.e., preferably on first Monday of every month in between 10.00 am., to 2.00 pm., till filing of charge sheet or further orders whichever is earlier.

2. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of this court without prior permission.

3. They shall not tamper the witness or abscond.

4. They shall co­operate with I.O for investigation.

5. They shall not commit similar offence or any offence while on bail.

6. He shall furnish his photo ID proof and local address proof document before the court and photo ID proof of his sureties

7. They shall appear before the court on all hearing dates.

8. Breach of any of the conditions by the petitioners, would entail cancellation of bail.

(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, directly on the computer, typed and computerised by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 23st day of August, 2022]. (B. S. JAYASHREE) XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE, (NDPS) : BENGALURU. PST/*