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 rejected the bail application filed by Murthy B. (Accused No. 6) in connection with a major drug trafficking case registered by the Koramangala Police Station under Crime No. 53/2022. The ruling highlights crucial principles on the total cumulative quantity of contraband in multi-accused drug rings and reinforces the strict statutory bar under Section 37 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

Background of the Case

The criminal investigation began on March 16, 2022, when the Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) of Koramangala Police Station received credible information during patrolling duty at around 12:00 PM. An informant reported that a suspect aged 25 to 30 years regularly visited a vacant spot at I Block, Bellary Colony, Koramangala, on Tuesdays and Wednesdays at around 4:00 PM to sell contraband.

After registering Crime No. 53/2022 against an unknown person under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act, the police team, accompanied by panchas, mounted surveillance at the spot. At approximately 4:10 PM, a suspect arrived in a rented autorickshaw carrying a travel bag. The police apprehended him, and he identified himself as Ramesh @ Bulli (Accused No. 1). A search yielded 4.2 kg of ganja along with 20 plastic packing covers.

During custodial interrogation, Accused No. 1 revealed that he sourced ganja from Bullet Shivaram (Accused No. 2), leading to a recovery of 26.5 kg of ganja from his house in Akshaynagar. Subsequently, Accused No. 2 was arrested with 2 kg of ganja, and a further recovery of 16.5 kg was made from his farmhouse in Chamarajnagar district.

Accused No. 2 disclosed that he supplied ganja to Murthy B. (Accused No. 6), Manjunatha (Accused No. 7), and Abilasha (Accused No. 8), who were selling drugs to college students and the public. Acting on this statement, the police apprehended Accused Nos. 6, 7, and 8 on March 25, 2022. Based on the voluntary statement of Murthy B. (Accused No. 6), police recovered 17.1 kg of ganja hidden behind an Indira Canteen near an old vehicle in 8th Block, Koramangala. Concurrent recoveries from Accused Nos. 7 and 8 yielded 18 kg and 18.1 kg respectively, bringing the total seizure across the accused syndicate to 102.2 kg of ganja.

Contentions of the Petitioner

Represented by advocate Sri H.G.G.M., Murthy B., aged 26 and a resident of Koramangala, Bengaluru, filed a bail petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) on the following grounds:

• Innocence and False Implication: The petitioner asserted that he was innocent, had committed no crime, and was falsely implicated by the police.
• Quantity Classification Argument: The defense argued that the individual recovery of 17.1 kg of ganja attributed to Accused No. 6 was less than a commercial quantity (20 kg).
• Procedural Safeguards: It was contended that mandatory procedure contemplated under Sections 41, 42, 50, 52, and 47 of the NDPS Act were not followed during the search and recovery.
• Residence and Willingness: As a permanent resident of Bengaluru, the petitioner offered to furnish reliable sureties and abide by any court-imposed conditions.

Objections by the Prosecution

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

• Cumulative Commercial Quantity: The overall seizure in the case amounted to 102.2 kg of ganja, constituting a massive commercial quantity.
• Criminal Antecedents: Investigation revealed that the petitioner (Accused No. 6) and co-accused (Accused Nos. 7 & 8) were habitual drug peddlers named in multiple criminal cases across Madiwala, Koramangala, and Adugodi police stations.
• Severity of Offence and Threat to Youth: The offence carries a punishment of rigorous imprisonment ranging from 10 to 20 years with a fine. The prosecution argued that the accused targeted college students, and releasing the petitioner would pose a serious risk of absconding, witness tampering, and re-offending.

Legal Analysis and Judicial Findings

The presiding judge, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, thoroughly evaluated the prosecution papers, statutory provisions, and judicial precedents to decide whether the petitioner met the criteria for bail.

Non-Segregation of Contraband Quantity in Drug Rings

The court firmly rejected the defense argument that the petitioner’s individual recovery (17.1 kg) should be evaluated independently:

1. When multiple accused operate together in a drug peddling ring, the quantum of contraband seized cannot be artificially segregated for each individual accused.
2. The entire cumulative recovery of 102.2 kg of ganja across the conspiracy must be taken into account.
3. Under Ministry of Finance Notification S.O.1055(E) dated October 19, 2001 (Sl. No. 55), the commercial threshold for ganja is 20 kg. Hence, the total seizure of 102.2 kg falls squarely in the commercial quantity category.

Mandatory Conditions Under Section 37 NDPS Act

The court noted that for commercial quantities, Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act establishes a strict statutory bar where “negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception.” Bail can only be granted if two cumulative conditions are fulfilled:

1. There are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence.
2. The accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Precedents Cited by the Court

Judge B.S. Jayashree relied on landmark Supreme Court decisions:

1. Union of India v. Mohammed Nawaz Khan (2021): The Apex Court emphasized that strict parameters under Section 37 must be applied, holding that absence of physical recovery on a person does not absolve the court of scrutiny when constructive possession and joint conspiracy exist.
2. State of Kerala v. Rajesh (2020): The Supreme Court held that “reasonable grounds” mean substantial probable cause to believe the accused is not guilty, warning that a liberal approach to bail under the NDPS Act is uncalled for.
3. State of M.P. v. Kajad (2001) & Babua v. State of Orissa (2001): The Apex Court established that citizen liberty must be balanced against society’s protection from lethal drug trade, justifying pre-trial detention where prima facie evidence and criminal antecedents exist.

Applying these legal principles, the court observed that 17.1 kg of ganja was directly recovered at the instance of Accused No. 6, and the overall operation yielded 102.2 kg. Given the prima facie material and documented criminal antecedents across multiple police stations, the court could not conclude that the petitioner was innocent or unlikely to re-offend.

Final Order

Answering Point No. 1 in the negative, the court formally rejected the bail petition on July 20, 2022.

• Order: The petition filed by the petitioner, Murthy B., U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.