In a notable judgment, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS cases in Bengaluru granted regular bail to Kartik K (Accused No. 1), Sanjay Kumar P (Accused No. 4), and Umesh (Accused No. 5). Presided over by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, the Special Court delivered its ruling in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 8400/2022 on September 19, 2022, holding that the small quantity of contraband involved and the grant of bail to a co-accused justified releasing the petitioners on bail.
Background of the Prosecution Case
The criminal proceedings were initiated following an operation conducted by the HAL Police Station. On August 15, 2022, around 4:30 PM, police officers received credible intelligence indicating that 6 to 7 individuals armed with deadly weapons were assembled near Vibhuthipura Lake in Bengaluru, planning to commit dacoity.
Upon securing authorization, a police team mounted surveillance at the spot around 5:30 PM. Officers observed individuals carrying deadly weapons (longs) and watching passersby suspiciously. The police intercepted and apprehended the suspects, recovering longs, weapons, and 500 grams of Ganja. HAL Police registered Crime No. 217/2022 under Sections 399 (Making preparation to commit dacoity) and 402 (Assembling for purpose of committing dacoity) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 25 of the Arms Act, and Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
Submissions by the Petitioners
Seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the petitioners, represented by advocate Sri S.A., submitted:
- Innocence and Alleged Implication: The petitioners maintained complete innocence, asserting they were falsely implicated by the police with no intention to commit dacoity or carry weapons.
- No Statutory Bar under Section 37: The quantity of Ganja seized (500 grams) was small, meaning the strict restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply.
- Procedural Violations: Mandatory statutory procedures governing search and recovery under the NDPS Act were not followed.
- Parity with Co-Accused: Co-accused Accused No. 5 had already been granted bail by the 57th ACMM, Bengaluru, on August 26, 2022, in Crl.Misc. 25718/2022.
- Permanent Address & Willingness to Comply: The petitioners are permanent residents of Vibhuthipura, Bengaluru, and expressed readiness to abide by court-imposed conditions and furnish reliable sureties.
Objections by the Prosecution
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application, contending that:
- The accused persons assembled with deadly weapons like knives, longs, and chili powder with an explicit plan to attack passersby and commit robbery.
- The petitioners were found in conscious possession of 500 grams of Ganja.
- Releasing the petitioners created a high risk of absconding, tampering with prosecution evidence, or committing similar offences.
Court’s Analysis and Judicial Precedents
The Special Court evaluated the classification of the seized substance, the status of the co-accused, and applicable 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):
| Contraband Category | Small Quantity Threshold | Commercial Quantity Threshold | Quantity Seized in Case | Legal Classification |
| Ganja | Up to 1,000 grams (1 kg) | 20 kilograms or more | 500 grams | Small Quantity |
Because 500 grams of Ganja constitutes a small quantity, the offence under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act carries imprisonment extending up to 1 year or fine penalties.
Evaluation of IPC and Arms Act Charges
Judge B.S. Jayashree noted that the offences under IPC Sections 399 and 402 and Section 25 of the Arms Act are not punishable by death or life imprisonment.
Parity and Judicial Precedent
The Special Court highlighted two critical considerations:
- Parity: Co-accused Accused No. 5 had already been enlarged on bail by the jurisdictional Magistrate court, and the allegations against the present petitioners were identical in nature.
- Supreme Court Precedent: The court cited Birbal Prasad v. State of Bihar [(2018) 11 SCC 488], where the Apex Court observed that when the quantity involved is non-commercial and the accused has no prior antecedents, bail should generally be granted pending trial.
Terms and Conditions of Bail
Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, the Special Court allowed the petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Kartik K, Sanjay Kumar P, and Umesh were ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- each, with one surety for the like sum, subject to the following conditions:
- The petitioners shall mark their attendance before the concerned 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.
- They shall not leave the court’s jurisdiction without prior permission.
- They shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses or abscond.
- They must fully cooperate with the Investigating Officer during investigation.
- They shall not commit a similar offence or any offence while on bail.
- They must furnish photo ID proof for themselves and their sureties.
- Any breach of these conditions will entail cancellation of bail.