In a notable order passed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS cases in Bengaluru granted regular bail to 25-year-old Jitun Kumar Posh (Accused). Presided over by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, the Special Court delivered its ruling on September 20, 2022, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 8972/2022, observing that the recovery of an intermediate quantity of Ganja does not attract the strict statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Background of the Case

The criminal law was set into motion based on a report submitted by the Police Sub-Inspector of Hebbagodi Police Station. On August 18, 2022, at around 10:40 AM, police officers received credible intelligence that an individual was selling Ganja to customers near Benki Muneshwara Temple, Mallasandra, Bengaluru.

Upon obtaining authorization from senior officers, a police team conducted a raid at the location and apprehended Jitun Kumar Posh. Search operations resulted in the seizure of 1 kilogram and 430 grams (1.43 kg) of Ganja under a formal spot panchanama (mahazar). Hebbagodi Police registered Crime No. 270/2022 for offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, and the accused was remanded to judicial custody.

Arguments Presented by the Petitioner

Seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the petitioner, represented by Sri B.R., Advocate, submitted:

• Innocence and False Implication: The petitioner maintained complete innocence, asserting he was falsely implicated at the instance of extraneous elements and had no knowledge of the alleged crime.
• Procedural Violations: The defense argued that mandatory provisions governing search and seizure under Sections 41, 42, 47, 50, and 52 of the NDPS Act were not complied with.
• Non-Commercial Quantity: The quantity seized (1.43 kg Ganja) falls below the threshold for commercial quantities.
• Family Dependency & Clean Record: The petitioner is the sole breadwinner for his dependent family, has no prior criminal antecedents, and has permanent addresses in Anekal, Bengaluru, and Bhadrak, Odisha.
• Willingness to Comply: He expressed readiness to furnish reliable solvent sureties and abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

Objections by the Prosecution

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail petition, contending that:

• The petitioner was found in conscious possession of 1.43 kg of Ganja, which carries rigorous imprisonment extending up to 10 years along with fines.
• The prosecution characterized the accused as an habitual drug peddler and raised concerns that granting bail could lead to absconding, delaying the investigation, or reoffending.

Court’s Analysis and Legal Precedents

The Special Judge evaluated the classification of the seized drug, the applicability of statutory bail restrictions, and relevant Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Classification of Contraband Thresholds

Under Notification S.O. 1055(E) dated October 19, 2001 (Sl. No. 55), issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue):

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

The court noted that the 1,430 grams (1.43 kg) of Ganja seized in this case exceeds small quantity limits but remains far below the 20 kg commercial threshold, placing it in the intermediate quantity bracket.

Applicability of Judicial Precedents

The Special Court relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Birbal Prasad v. State of Bihar [(2018) 11 SCC 488], which held that in cases involving non-commercial quantities of Ganja where the accused has no prior antecedents, bail should generally be granted pending trial under standard bail parameters.

Judge B.S. Jayashree observed that when the contraband involved is less than commercial quantity, the strict rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply, and standard principles governing bail petitions under general statutory provisions take precedence unless exceptional adverse factors are shown.

Key Factors Supporting Relief

1. Completion of Seizure: The incriminatory article had already been recovered, and the voluntary statement of the accused was recorded, rendering further custodial interrogation unnecessary.
2. Nature of Penalty: The offense does not carry life imprisonment or the death penalty.
3. Address Verification: The petitioner provided verifiable permanent residential details, and prosecution concerns regarding trial delays could be managed through stringent conditions.

Terms and Conditions of Bail

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, the Special Court allowed the petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Jitun Kumar Posh was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the concerned Investigating Officer once a month (preferably the first Monday) between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM until the charge sheet is filed or further orders are issued.
2. He shall not leave the court’s jurisdiction without prior permission.
3. He shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses or abscond.
4. He must fully cooperate with the Investigating Officer during the investigation.
5. He shall not commit similar offenses or any crime while on bail.
6. He must furnish photo ID proof and local address proof for himself and his sureties.
7. He must appear before the court on all scheduled hearing dates.
8. Any breach of these conditions will result in the immediate cancellation of bail.