In a notable legal ruling under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, the Special NDPS Court in Bengaluru has granted bail to three individuals from Assam—Goutham Narjari, Susojoth Basumatari, and Kramadeva Bramha. The order was passed by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS cases, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 6363/2022. The court held that the total quantity of ganja seized from the accused fell under the intermediate quantity category, rendering the stringent bail restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act inapplicable.
The case originated from a police operation conducted by the Kothanur Police Station in Bengaluru. On June 22, 2022, around 6:45 PM, the Police Inspector received credible intelligence regarding three individuals carrying narcotics in their bags near Patel Muniyappa Layout, Byrathi Cross, along the Hennur-Bengaluru Main Road. After informing higher officers and obtaining formal approval, the police team, accompanied by independent panchas, established a raid at the site and apprehended three individuals moving under suspicious circumstances.
Upon questioning, the individuals identified themselves as Goutham Narjari (aged 20), Susojoth Basumatari (aged 25), and Kramadeva Bramha (aged 28), all hailing from Chirang district in Assam. A physical search of their personal bags resulted in the recovery of 2 kilograms of ganja in total, distributed as 1 kilogram from Goutham Narjari, 500 grams from Susojoth Basumatari, and 500 grams from Kramadeva Bramha. Law enforcement seized the contraband under a spot panchanama, arrested the accused, and registered Crime No. 91/2022 under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act. The accused were subsequently presented before the jurisdictional Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody.
The petitioners filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure through their counsel, Sri. SMA. The defense argued that all three petitioners were innocent law-abiding citizens who had been falsely implicated in the case. Counsel submitted that the mandatory statutory procedures governing search and seizure under Sections 41, 42, 50, 52, and 47 of the NDPS Act were not properly observed. Furthermore, the defense submitted that the seized quantity was non-commercial, custodial interrogation was no longer necessary, and the petitioners were ready to comply with any conditions imposed by the court.
The prosecution, represented by the Public Prosecutor, opposed the bail application, contending that 2 kilograms of ganja had been seized directly from the petitioners. The State argued that the offense carries a punishment of up to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment along with fines. Expressing concerns over potential flight risk and the likelihood of the accused continuing illicit drug trade or tampering with evidence, the prosecution requested the court to reject the bail petition.
Delivering the order on July 6, 2022, Judge B.S. Jayashree analyzed the legal classification of the seized narcotic substance. According to the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E) dated October 19, 2001, 1,000 grams (1 kg) of ganja is defined as a small quantity, while 20 kilograms constitutes a commercial quantity. The court determined that the 2 kilograms recovered in this case qualifies as an intermediate quantity.
Referencing the landmark Supreme Court decision in Birbal Prasad v. State of Bihar (2018 11 SCC 488), the Special Judge noted that when a seized drug is less than commercial quantity, the strict bar on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not apply. In such intermediate quantity cases, standard bail principles under regular criminal jurisprudence govern the petition unless exceptional adverse circumstances are demonstrated by the prosecution.
The court further noted that the incriminatory material had already been seized, the voluntary statements of the accused were recorded, and the major portion of the investigation was complete. Because the alleged offense does not carry the death penalty or life imprisonment, the court observed that further custodial detention was unwarranted and that any risk of absconding or trial delay could be mitigated through strict conditional bail.
Consequently, the court answered Point No. 1 in the affirmative and allowed the bail petition. Goutham Narjari, Susojoth Basumatari, and Kramadeva Bramha were ordered to be enlarged on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 each with two sureties for the like sum. The court imposed several conditions, including mandatory monthly attendance at the police station on the first Monday of every month, prior permission before leaving the court’s jurisdiction, full cooperation with the investigation officer, submission of identity and address proofs, and a strict prohibition against reoffending or tampering with prosecution witnesses.