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 Gopi alias Narayan (Accused No. 1) under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The petitioner had been arrested and remanded in connection with Crime No. 146/2022 registered by the K.P. Agrahara Police Station for offences punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
Background and Prosecution Allegations
The criminal law was set in motion following a report submitted by the Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) of K.P. Agrahara Police Station. On September 7, 2022, at around 3:00 PM, a police constable on patrolling duty received credible intelligence indicating that a person was selling contraband near Binny Canteen, 11th Main, Binny Bridge, Bengaluru.
After confirming the information, a report was prepared, and a case was registered against the petitioner, Gopi alias Narayan, in Crime No. 146/2022. A raiding team headed by the PSI proceeded to the spot, intercepted the suspect, and inspected a bag found in his possession. The bag was found to contain ganja weighing 2 kilograms and 115 grams. The contraband was seized under a spot mahazar, and the petitioner was arrested and subsequently remanded to judicial custody.
Submissions of the Parties
Advocate Sri N.N., appearing for petitioner Gopi alias Narayan, submitted before the Special Court that the petitioner was innocent, law-abiding, and falsely implicated by the police. Counsel contended that mandatory procedural provisions under Sections 41, 42, 47, 50, and 52 of the NDPS Act were not complied with during the search and seizure. It was further submitted that the seized quantity was non-commercial, the alleged offence did not carry sentences of life imprisonment or death, major portions of the investigation were complete, and the petitioner, being the sole breadwinner of his family with no bad antecedents, was willing to abide by any stringent bail conditions.
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail petition, highlighting that 2 kilograms and 115 grams of ganja were seized from the direct possession of the accused. The prosecution argued that the offence was punishable with rigorous imprisonment for up to 10 years, there existed a strong prima facie case, and the petitioner was a habitual drug dealer who might abscond or hamper the ongoing investigation if enlarged on bail.
Legal Analysis and Application of Precedents
The Special Court framed the central point for consideration as whether the petitioner had made out sufficient grounds for the grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
Evaluating the quantity of contraband seized, 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 2 kilograms and 115 grams of ganja falls within the intermediate quantity threshold.
The Special Court placed reliance on the decision of 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 represented a non-commercial quantity and the accused had no prior criminal antecedents.
Applying this ratio, the Special Judge observed that when the quantity of contraband is less than commercial, the strict statutory bar against bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not apply. In intermediate quantity cases, considerations for bail align with standard criminal jurisprudence unless the prosecution demonstrates exceptional circumstances.
The Court noted that the incriminatory material had already been seized, the petitioner’s voluntary statement was recorded, and further custodial interrogation was no longer required. The Court held that prosecution concerns regarding potential absconding or trial delay could be adequately addressed by imposing strict conditions.
Final Decision and Bail Conditions
The Special Court allowed Miscellaneous Criminal Petition No. 9183/2022 and ordered the release of Gopi alias Narayan on bail upon executing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum, subject to the following conditions:
- 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.
- He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
- He shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses or abscond.
- He shall fully cooperate with the Investigating Officer during the investigation.
- He shall not commit similar offences or any other offence while on bail.
- He shall furnish his photo identity proof and local address proof documents before the Court, along with photo identity proof of his sureties.
- He shall appear before the Court on all hearing dates.
- Any breach of these conditions shall entail immediate cancellation of bail.