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 petition filed by Asif K.P. (Accused No. 1) in connection with Crime No. 384/2022 registered by the D.J. Halli Police Station. The petitioner had been remanded to judicial custody for offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

Case Background and Allegations

The criminal law was set in motion by the Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) of D.J. Halli Police Station. According to the prosecution, on November 5, 2022, at around 5:30 PM, the PSI received credible information indicating that an individual would arrive near Pottery Circle, Tannery Road, D.J. Halli, Bengaluru, at approximately 6:30 PM to sell ganja.

Upon informing senior officers and securing permission to conduct a raid, the PSI, accompanied by station staff and independent panchas, reached the spot around 6:00 PM and mounted surveillance. The team intercepted a suspect who identified himself as Asif K.P., aged 31 years, residing in HAL, Bengaluru, with a permanent address in Vadakara Taluk, Kozhikode Rural, Kerala.

A search of the bag carried by the accused resulted in the recovery and seizure of 9 kilograms and 400 grams of ganja. Samples were drawn for forensic evaluation, and a detailed report was submitted to the Station House Officer, culminating in the registration of Crime No. 384/2022.

Submissions of the Parties

Advocate Sri Shanthakumar H.T., appearing for petitioner Asif K.P., contended before the Special Court that the petitioner was innocent, law-abiding, and had been falsely implicated in the case. Counsel submitted that mandatory statutory provisions under Sections 41, 42, 50, 52, and 47 of the NDPS Act were not complied with during the search and seizure process. It was further submitted that the seized quantity was non-commercial, the alleged offence did not attract capital punishment or life imprisonment, the investigation was substantially complete, and the petitioner, being the sole breadwinner of his family without criminal antecedents, was prepared to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea, emphasizing that 9 kilograms and 400 grams of ganja was seized directly from the possession of the accused. The prosecution argued that there existed a strong prima facie case, that the offence was punishable with rigorous imprisonment for up to 10 years, and that the petitioner was an habitual drug dealer who might abscond or hamper the investigation if enlarged on bail.

Legal Analysis and Judicial Reasoning

After considering the arguments and examining the case records, the Special Judge framed the central question of whether the petitioner had made out sufficient grounds to be granted bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).

In evaluating the nature of the contraband, the Court referred to Notification S.O.1055(E) dated October 19, 2001, issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue). Under Entry No. 55 of the schedule, up to 1,000 grams (1 kg) of ganja is defined as a small quantity, whereas 20 kilograms or more constitutes a commercial quantity. Consequently, the court held that the recovery of 9 kilograms and 400 grams of ganja falls within the intermediate quantity threshold.

The Special Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Birbal Prasad v. State of Bihar (2018 11 SCC 488), where the Apex Court granted bail to an accused involved in a seizure of 14 kilograms of ganja on the ground that it represented a non-commercial quantity and the appellant had no prior record.

Applying this legal principle, the Special Judge observed that when the quantity of contraband is less than commercial, the stringent conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted. As a result, the adjudication aligns with regular statutory bail considerations unless extraordinary circumstances are demonstrated by the prosecution.

The Court noted that the major portion of the investigation was complete with the seizure of the incriminatory material, the petitioner’s voluntary statement had been recorded, and further custodial interrogation was uncalled for. The Court held that the prosecution’s apprehension regarding the accused absconding could be safeguarded by imposing strict conditions.

Final Decision and Bail Conditions

The Special Court allowed Miscellaneous Criminal Petition No. 10926/2022 and ordered the release of Asif K.P. 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. 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 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 documents before the Court, along with photo identity proof of his sureties.
7. He shall appear before the Court on all hearing dates.
8. Any breach of these conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.