The Court of the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS cases at Bengaluru, presided over by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, allowed the bail application filed by Akshay Bindhani (Accused No. 2) in connection with Crime No. 162/2022 registered by the Beguru Police Station. The petitioner had been arrested and remanded under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

Background of the Prosecution Case

The proceedings originated from information received by the Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) of Beguru Police Station on June 17, 2022, regarding the alleged illegal sale of ganja by an unidentified individual in an open space near Basapura Main Road, Chikkabeguru. Upon compiling a detailed report, the PSI registered a suo-moto case under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act against an unknown person and sought permission from senior officers to conduct a raid.

Following the receipt of authorization, the police team, accompanied by independent panchas, raided the designated spot and apprehended a suspect. A personal search yielded 1 kilogram and 190 grams of ganja along with 20 plastic covers. During initial interrogation, the apprehended person revealed that the contraband was purchased from Akshay Bindhani and another individual named Tapan Kumar, both hailing from Odisha State.

Based on these statements, the investigating agency set up a trap on June 21, 2022, near the Nice Road Bridge on Basapura Main Road. The police subsequently intercepted and arrested Akshay Bindhani and co-accused Tapan Kumar, recovering an additional 3 kilograms and 530 grams of ganja from their possession under a detailed panchanama. The total quantity of contraband attributed to the accused across the seizures amounted to 4 kilograms and 720 grams.

Arguments Advanced by the Parties

Advocate Sri Thilak, representing petitioner Akshay Bindhani, submitted before the Special Court that the petitioner was innocent, law-abiding, and had been falsely implicated at the instance of extraneous elements. Counsel argued that the police failed to comply with the mandatory statutory provisions under Sections 41, 42, 50, 52, and 47 of the NDPS Act. It was further submitted that the total seized quantity did not constitute a commercial quantity under the law, the alleged offence did not carry a sentence of life imprisonment or death, the major part of the investigation was complete, and the petitioner, being the sole breadwinner of his family with no prior criminal antecedents, was willing to abide by any stringent bail conditions.

Conversely, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, contending that a total of 4 kilograms and 720 grams of ganja was recovered from the possession of the accused persons. The prosecution argued that there existed a strong prima facie case against the petitioner, who was allegedly an habitual drug dealer. The state expressed apprehension that if released on bail, the petitioner might abscond and hamper the ongoing investigation.

Judicial Reasoning and Statutory Application

After hearing both sides and examining the record, the Special Judge framed the principal question of whether the petitioner had made out sufficient grounds for the grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).

In analyzing the quantity of the seized contraband, the Court referred to Notification S.O.1055(E) dated October 19, 2001, issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue). As per Entry No. 55 of the schedule, up to 1,000 grams (1 kg) of ganja is classified as a small quantity, while 20 kilograms or more is designated as a commercial quantity. Consequently, the Court held that the total recovery of 4 kilograms and 720 grams of ganja falls within the category of an intermediate quantity.

The Special Court placed reliance on the precedent set by the Supreme Court of India in Birbal Prasad v. State of Bihar (2018 11 SCC 488), wherein the Apex Court granted bail to an accused involved in the recovery of 14 kilograms of ganja on the ground that it constituted a non-commercial quantity and the accused had no prior criminal antecedents.

Applying this ratio, the Court observed that when the seized substance is less than commercial quantity, the strict statutory bar against granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not apply. In such intermediate quantity cases, bail considerations align with standard principles under regular criminal jurisprudence unless the prosecution establishes exceptional disentitling circumstances.

The Special Judge further noted that the recovery of the incriminatory material was complete, the petitioner’s voluntary statement had already been recorded, and further custodial interrogation was no longer required. The Court observed that the prosecution’s concerns regarding potential absconding or trial delay could be adequately addressed by imposing suitable conditions.

Final Order and Conditions Imposed

The Special Court allowed Miscellaneous Criminal Petition No. 7015/2022 and ordered the release of Akshay Bindhani on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum, subject to the following directions:

1. The petitioner shall report before the Concerned Investigating Officer once a month, preferably on the first Monday of every month between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM, until the filing of the charge sheet or until further orders.
2. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
3. He shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses or abscond.
4. He shall fully cooperate with the Investigating Officer during the investigation.
5. He shall not commit similar offences or any other offence while on bail.
6. He shall furnish his photo identity proof and local address proof document before the Court, along with photo identity proof of his sureties.
7. He shall appear before the Court on all scheduled hearing dates.
8. Any breach of these conditions shall entail immediate cancellation of the bail.