Executive Summary of the Ruling

On July 11, 2022, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS Cases at Bengaluru, presided over by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, allowed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 6427/2022. The court granted regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to Asadulla @ Syed Asadulla (Accused No. 1).

The petitioner was arrested in connection with Crime No. 169/2022, registered by the Ashok Nagar Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The court granted bail primarily on the ground that the seized contraband—5 kilograms of ganja—constitutes an intermediate quantity, which renders the strict statutory conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act inapplicable.

Case Overview and Factual Background

The Police Raid and Seizure

According to the report submitted by the Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) of Ashok Nagar Police Station, credible information was received on June 23, 2022, between 12:30 PM and 1:00 PM. The informer stated that two persons were selling ganja to the public near Anepalya Bus Stop in Hosuru, within the jurisdiction of the respondent police station.

After informing superior officers and securing authorization, the PSI, accompanied by independent panchas and police staff, conducted a raid and apprehended the suspects. Upon interrogation, the primary suspect identified himself as Asadulla @ Syed Asadulla, aged 42 years, residing at Kolar Town, Kolar District.

A personal search was carried out, resulting in the recovery and seizure of 5 kilograms of ganja, plastic covers, and 2 mobile phones. A detailed seizure panchanama was drawn up at the spot, and Crime No. 169/2022 was registered under Sections 8(c) and 20(b) of the NDPS Act. The petitioner was subsequently arrested, produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, and remanded to judicial custody.

Legal Arguments Advanced

Submissions by the Petitioner

Advocate Sri M.S., representing the petitioner, submitted the following arguments:

• Innocence and False Implication: The petitioner maintained that he was an innocent citizen with no knowledge of the alleged crime and had been falsely implicated at the instance of extraneous elements.
• Procedural Non-Compliance: The defense contended that mandatory search and seizure requirements under Sections 41, 42, 47, 50, and 52 of the NDPS Act were not complied with by the raiding party.
• Lack of Independent Eye-Witnesses: There were no independent eye-witnesses to substantiate the allegation that the petitioner was selling contraband to the public.
• Intermediate Quantity: The quantity seized (5 kg) was below the statutory commercial threshold.
• Personal Circumstances: The petitioner was stated to have no prior bad antecedents, to be a permanent resident of Kolar, and to be the sole breadwinner for his family. He offered to abide by any conditions imposed by the court and furnish reliable sureties.

Objections by the Prosecution

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application on the following grounds:

• Direct Seizure: The investigating agency seized 5 kg of ganja directly from the possession of the accused under a spot mahazar.
• Severity of Offence: The alleged offence carries a potential punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a term extending up to 10 years along with a fine.
• Risk of Absconding: The prosecution characterized the petitioner as a habitual drug dealer and argued that releasing him on bail would pose a risk of absconding, witness tampering, or hampering the investigation.

Detailed Judicial Reasoning and Findings

1. Statutory Classification of the Contraband

The Special Judge evaluated the classification of ganja pursuant to Notification S.O.1055(E) dated October 19, 2001, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (Entry No. 55):

• Small Quantity: Up to 1,000 grams (1 kg)
• Commercial Quantity: 20 kg and above

Because the quantity seized from the petitioner was 5 kilograms, the court categorized it as an intermediate quantity (more than small quantity, but less than commercial quantity).

Contraband Category	Statutory Threshold	Quantity in Present Case
Small Quantity	Up to 1 kg	—
Intermediate Quantity	1.01 kg to 19.99 kg	5 kg (Seized)
Commercial Quantity	20 kg and above	—

2. Inapplicability of Section 37 Rigors

The court noted that the strict statutory conditions for refusing bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply primarily to cases involving commercial quantities. When the seized drug falls in the intermediate range, standard bail considerations under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. govern the outcome, unless the prosecution demonstrates extraordinary disentitling factors.

3. Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent

The court relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Birbal Prasad v. State of Bihar [(2018) 11 SCC 488]. In that matter, the Supreme Court held that where the quantity involved (14 kg of ganja) was non-commercial and the accused had no other prior criminal involvement, the accused should ordinarily be released on bail pending trial under appropriate conditions. The Special Judge held that this rationale applied directly to the present case.

4. Completion of Recovery and Lack of Need for Custodial Detention

The Special Judge observed that the incriminatory material had already been seized from the accused and his voluntary statement had been recorded. Because major aspects of the recovery were complete and the offence was not punishable by death or life imprisonment, continued custodial interrogation was no longer warranted. The court concluded that concerns regarding trial delay or abscondment could be managed by imposing strict conditions.

Conditions of the Bail Order

The Special Court allowed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 6427/2022 and ordered that Asadulla @ Syed Asadulla be enlarged on bail upon executing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum, subject to the following conditions:

1. Station Attendance: The petitioner shall report before the Concerned Investigating Officer once a month (preferably on the first Monday) between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM until the filing of the charge sheet or further orders, whichever is earlier.
2. Jurisdictional Restriction: The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
3. Non-Interference: The petitioner shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses or abscond.
4. Cooperation with Investigation: The petitioner shall cooperate fully with the Investigating Officer.
5. Prevention of Recidivism: The petitioner shall not commit a similar offence or any offence while on bail.
6. Documentation: The petitioner shall furnish his photo ID proof and photo ID proof of his sureties before the court.
7. Court Appearance: The petitioner shall appear before the court on all hearing dates.
8. Cancellation Clause: Breach of any of the conditions by the petitioner would entail cancellation of bail.