In a significant judicial order delivered by the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS cases at Bengaluru, the court allowed the bail application filed by Bhaskar Pegu in connection with a drug possession case registered by the Marathahalli Police Station. The order highlights key legal principles regarding the classification of contraband quantities under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, and the applicability of stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the Act.

Background of the Case

The case originated on December 12, 2022, when the Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) of Marathahalli Police Station received credible information at around 8:30 AM. The information indicated that an individual holding a carry bag was selling prohibited contraband to the public on the footpath of Sakra Hospital Road, Devarabisanahalli, within their jurisdictional limits.

After informing higher officers and obtaining necessary permissions, the police team secured independent witnesses (panchas) and proceeded to the spot at 9:00 AM. Upon mounting surveillance, they spotted a person standing at a distance engaged in selling narcotic drugs. The police team surrounded and apprehended the individual, identified as Bhaskar Pegu (Accused No. 1).

During a personal search, the officers seized 1 kilogram and 400 grams of Ganja. A detailed spot seizure mahazar was drawn, and a case was registered under Crime No. 296/2022 for offences punishable under Section 8(c) and Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The petitioner was subsequently arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

Contentions of the Petitioner

Represented by his advocate, Sri Noor Pasha, Bhaskar Pegu filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The grounds raised in support of the bail plea included:

• Innocence and False Implication: The petitioner asserted that he was innocent, a law-abiding citizen, and had been falsely implicated at the instance of extraneous elements.
• Non-Compliance with Mandatory Provisions: It was contended that the mandatory statutory safeguards under Sections 41, 42, 50, 52, and 47 of the NDPS Act were not complied with during the search and seizure.
• Quantity Classification: The defense argued that the seized quantity of 1.4 kg of Ganja did not constitute a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act framework.
• No Prior Antecedents: The petitioner stated that he had no bad antecedents and was the sole earning member of his family.
• Cooperation and Residence: Being a permanent resident at the address provided in the cause title, he expressed readiness to furnish sureties and abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

Objections by the Prosecution

The prosecution, represented by the Public Prosecutor, strongly opposed the bail petition on the following grounds:

• Seizure and Investigation: A total of 1.4 kg of Ganja was seized directly from the possession of the accused following a personal search and a detailed mahazar.
• Gravity of Offence: The offence carries a punishment of rigorous imprisonment extending up to 10 years along with a fine.
• Risk of Absconding: The prosecution expressed apprehension that if released on bail, the petitioner might abscond, hamper the ongoing investigation, or indulge in similar criminal activities as an alleged habitual drug dealer.

Legal Analysis and Findings of the Court

The presiding judge, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, evaluated the material on record and focused on the core legal issue: whether the quantity of contraband seized attracted the strict restrictions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Classification of Contraband Quantity

As per Notification S.O.1055(E) dated October 19, 2001, issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue):

• Small Quantity for Ganja: Up to 1,000 grams (1 kg).
• Commercial Quantity for Ganja: 20 kilograms or more.

In the present case, the seized quantity of 1 kg 400 grams fell between small and commercial thresholds, categorizing it as an intermediate quantity.

Applicability of Precedents and Section 37 NDPS Act

The court referred to the landmark ruling 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 found in possession of 14 kg of Ganja (a non-commercial quantity), noting the absence of prior involvement in other cases.

Applying this principle, the court observed:

1. When the quantity involved is less than commercial quantity, the strict rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act—which impose heavy hurdles on granting bail—do not apply.
2. The consideration for bail reverts to regular statutory principles governing non-commercial offences under the Cr.P.C., unless exceptional adverse circumstances are demonstrated by the prosecution.
3. The major portion of the investigation was concluded since the incriminatory article had already been seized, and the petitioner’s voluntary statement was recorded.
4. The alleged offence does not carry a penalty of death or life imprisonment, making further custodial interrogation unnecessary.

Final Order and Conditions Imposed

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, the court allowed Crl.Misc.No.12284/2022 on December 21, 2022, ordering the release of Bhaskar Pegu on bail subject to the following terms:

1. Bail Bond: The petitioner must execute a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum.
2. Police Attendance: He must report before the 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.
3. Jurisdiction Restrictions: He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
4. Non-Interference: He must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or abscond.
5. Investigation Cooperation: He must cooperate fully with the Investigating Officer.
6. Prevention of Recidivism: He shall not commit similar offences or any other crime while on bail.
7. Identity Verification: He must submit photo ID proof and local address proof for himself and his sureties.
8. Court Appearance: He must appear before the court on all scheduled hearing dates.

The court explicitly noted that any breach of these conditions would lead to the immediate cancellation of the bail.