In a significant judicial order, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS cases in Bengaluru granted anticipatory bail to Abhishek B (Accused No. 4) in connection with Crime No. 140/2022 registered at the Magadi Road Police Station. The court, presided over by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, delivered the ruling on August 23, 2022, emphasizing that custodial interrogation was not warranted given the facts and circumstances of the case.
Background of the Case
The criminal law was set into motion on July 16, 2022, following a report submitted by the Police Inspector of Magadi Road Police Station. According to the prosecution, credible information was received on July 15, 2022, regarding the illicit storage of contraband in a residential premises located in Gopalpura, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru.
After securing the requisite permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police (CCB), police officials conducted a raid on the house of Accused No. 1. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were also present on the premises during the search. The police seized 940 grams of Hashish Oil and 10 kilograms of Ganja under a formal panchanama (seizure mahazar), and arrested Accused Nos. 1 to 3 on the spot.
During interrogation, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 reportedly disclosed that they had procured the contraband from Tuni, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, and alleged that Accused No. 4, Abhishek B, had accompanied them on the trip to purchase the drugs. Based on these statements, Abhishek B was implicated as Accused No. 4 in Crime No. 140/2022 for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), and 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
Arguments Presented by the Defense
Seeking protection against potential arrest, Abhishek B filed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The petitioner, represented by Sri Suresh Babu, presented several key arguments before the court:
- Innocence and Lack of Knowledge: The petitioner maintained that he is an innocent, law-abiding citizen working as an engineer, with deep roots in society and no involvement in the alleged crime.
- Implication Based Solely on Co-Accused Statement: The defense highlighted that Abhishek B was named solely on the basis of statements made by Accused Nos. 1 and 2 during custodial interrogation, without independent corroborative material.
- No Contraband Recovered from Petitioner: The incriminatory articles (Hashish Oil and Ganja) were seized entirely from the house of Accused No. 1, with no physical recovery made from Abhishek B.
- Co-Accused Released on Bail: The other co-accused (Accused Nos. 1 to 3) from whom the seized contraband was directly recovered had already been granted bail.
Prosecution’s Objections
The prosecution, represented by the Public Prosecutor, strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. The prosecution argued that:
- The petitioner was absconding and required for custodial investigation.
- A substantial quantity of illegal substances—specifically 940 grams of Hashish Oil and 10 Kgs of Ganja—was recovered in the case.
- There was a prima facie case against the petitioner, and granting bail might lead to absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence.
Court’s Analysis and Legal Findings
The Special Court systematically analyzed the nature of the contraband seized and the legal threshold governing intermediate quantities under the NDPS Act.
Classification of the Contraband Quantity
As per the official notification S.O. 1055(E) issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) on October 19, 2001:
- Hashish / Hashish Oil: Small quantity is defined as up to 100 grams, whereas commercial quantity begins at 1 kilogram (1,000 grams). The seized quantity of 940 grams falls short of the commercial threshold and is classified as an intermediate quantity.
- Ganja: Small quantity is defined as up to 1,000 grams (1 kg), whereas commercial quantity is 20 kilograms. The seized quantity of 10 kilograms also constitutes an intermediate quantity.
Because the seized quantities were intermediate rather than commercial, the strict statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act—which imposes stringent conditions for granting bail in commercial quantity cases—did not apply.
Key Factors Influencing the Decision
- Parity with Co-Accused: The court noted that Accused Nos. 1 to 3, from whom the actual contraband was seized, had already been enlarged on bail.
- Nature of Allegation: The primary allegation against Abhishek B was that he had accompanied the co-accused to Andhra Pradesh. No recovery was made from his possession.
- Punishment Severity: The alleged offences do not carry the death penalty or imprisonment for life, rendering custodial interrogation unnecessary at this stage.
- Permanent Residence: The court observed that the petitioner provided verified residential details in Bengaluru, mitigating the risk of him absconding.
Final Court Order and Conditions
Satisfied that sufficient grounds were established, the Court answered Point No. 1 in the affirmative and allowed the anticipatory bail petition. The Court directed the respondent police to release Abhishek B on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No. 140/2022, subject to executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum, alongside the following conditions:
- The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
- He must mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer every first Sunday of the month between 10:00 AM and 5:00 PM until the filing of the charge sheet or further orders.
- He must attend all court hearings without fail and cannot leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
- He shall not threaten or attempt to tamper with prosecution witnesses in any manner.
- He shall not commit similar offences or any other crime while on bail.
- He must furnish photo ID proof and photo identity proof of his sureties.
- Any breach of these conditions will lead to the cancellation of bail.