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 13 th DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 Crl.Misc.No.11889/2022 petitioner : Rizwan S/o.late Adil, a/a 34 years, (accused No.1) R/at No.5/1, 1st Main, 3rd Cross, Venkategowda Layout, Hebbal, Kempapura, Bengaluru­24 (By Sri.Anil Kumar. Adv.) V/S. Respondent : State by Amruthahalli PS (By Public Prosecutor) O R D E R The present petition U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner to enlarge him on bail, in Cr.No.276/2022 of Amruthahalli PS., registered for the offence punishable U/Sec.22 B of NDPS Act.

2. The grounds urged by the petitioner for grant of bail

are as under: That the petitioner is very innocent and law abiding citizens. He has not committed any offence much less the offence as alleged. He has no knowledge of alleged crime and falsely implanted at the instance of extraneous elements. He is the only earning member of his family. The mandatory provisions U/s.50 of NDPS Act have not been complied. There are no eye witnesses who speak about the sale of alleged contraband. Though the alleged offence are non bailable, but are neither punishable with imprisonment for life or death sentence. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions imposed by this court in the event of grant of bail. He is ready to offer surety for his due appearance before this court. he has no bad antecedents. Hence, sought to grant bail.

3. The objection raised by the prosecution is that the

investigating agency in all seized 2 grams of MDMA and 500 gram of Ganja from the possession of the accused. The CCH­33 Crl.Misc.No.11889/2022 3 accused are found to be in possession of narcotic substance. A detailed mahazar are drawn in the spot. Personal search is conducted. The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall extend upto 10 years. There is a primafacie case available against the petitioner. He is habitual drug dealer. In the event of grant of bail, he would abscond and may hamper the investigation. Hence, sought to reject the bail plea of petitioner.

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 petitioner have made out sufficient grounds to enlarge him 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:­ The PI of Amruthahalli PS as put the

criminal law into motion. The gist of the allegation reads as here under:­ On 22.11.2022, at 6.45 pm., when the complainant was discharging duties in the station, he has received a credible information that at Sindhi College Road within limits of respondent police station some 4 to 5 persons in a two wheeler and in an auto rickshaw are selling ganja to the public. He has noted the information in the station house diary, informed the matter to the Assistant commissioner of Police obtained the permission to conduct raid. He along with his team immediately rushed to the spot and found 6 persons moving suspiciously in the spot. They were surrounded, one person ran away from the spot. On enquiry he has revealed his names as Rizwan, Chetan, Harish, Harbaaz and Venkat. The person who ran away from the spot is Sharavana. Each one of him were carrying a bag. When his bags were checked it was containing 100 grams of ganja. Two grams of MDMA was CCH­33 Crl.Misc.No.11889/2022 5 found in the bag of accused No.1­Rizwan along with 100 grams of ganja. The ganja and MDMA were seized under the mahazar. Accused Nos.1 to 5 were arrested. A report is prepared and submitted before the SHO., which is the basis to register the case against the accused in Cr.No.276/2022 for the offences punishable U/s.22(B) of NDPS Act. The accused were produced before the court remanded to Judicial Custody. The present petitioner is accused No.1 in the case.

8. It is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that

he is planted in the case by the complainant police he is unaware of seized drug. The seized articles is not commercial quantity. The mandatory provisions of Sec.41, 42, 50, 52 and 47 of the Act is not complied. He is permanent residents of the address given in the cause title. In the event of grant of bail he is ready to abide by the conditions which are being imposed by this court.

9. On careful analysis of rival contentions and the

prosecution papers available on record, it is evident that on 22.11.2022 complainant has conducted raid and apprehended accused Nos.1 to 5. On looking to the seizure panchanama the drugs seized from the accused Nos.1 to 5 is weighing 500 grams of ganja and 2 grams of MDMA. 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.134 the narcotic drug­MDMA 0.5 grams is small quantity and 10 grams is commercial quantity. The quantum of ganja seized is small quantity. When the quantity is less than commercial quantity, rigors of Sec.37 of the NDPS Act will not attract, and factors become similar to bail petitions under regular statues normal, unless the prosecution points towards exceptional circumstances.

10. The major portion of investigation in the case is

concluded as the incriminatory article is already seized from accused. The offence alleged against the petitioner is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Further custodial interrogation is not warranted. His Voluntary statement is already recorded. As per the information provided CCH­33 Crl.Misc.No.11889/2022 7 by the petitioner he is permanently residing in the address shown in the cause title. The apprehension of the prosecution that he 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.

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

following:

ORDER

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

1. The petitioner 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 are earlier.

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

3. He shall not tamper the witness or abscond.

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

5. He 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. He shall appear before the court on all hearing dates.

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

[Dictated to the stenographer, directly on the computer, typed and computerised by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 13th day of December 2022) (B. S. JAYASHREE) XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE, (NDPS) : BENGALURU. CN/*