In a notable judicial order delivered by the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS cases at Bengaluru, the court allowed the bail application filed by Naseer Ahmad (Accused No. 2). The case, registered by the Hosakote Police Station under Crime No. 215/2022, involves allegations under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The order reaffirms established legal principles regarding intermediate contraband quantities, confirming that non-commercial quantities do not attract the strict bail restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Background of the Case

The criminal proceedings commenced on June 23, 2022, when the Police Inspector (PI) of Hosakote Police Station received credible information at around 2:15 PM. The tip-off indicated that two individuals were selling ganja near Dandupalya Gate on the NH-75 Bengaluru-Kolar service road.

Upon obtaining permission from superior officers, the police team, accompanied by independent witnesses (panchas), proceeded to the spot and mounted surveillance. Noticing the police presence, two individuals attempted to flee but were surrounded and apprehended. They were identified as Shek Sameer (Accused No. 1) and Naseer Ahmad (Accused No. 2).

A cloth bag held by Accused No. 1 was searched, revealing ganja consisting of leaves, flowers, stems, and seeds weighing a total of 1 kilogram and 550 grams. The contraband was seized under a spot seizure panchanama, and Crime No. 215/2022 was registered. Both accused were arrested on June 23, 2022, produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, and remanded to judicial custody.

Contentions of the Petitioner

Represented by advocate Sri H., Naseer Ahmad filed a bail petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking regular bail. The primary grounds urged included:

• Innocence and False Implication: The petitioner asserted that he was innocent, a law-abiding citizen with no knowledge of the seized drug, and had been falsely implicated by the police.
• No Direct Recovery: The petitioner emphasized that no incriminatory article or contraband was recovered directly from his personal custody; the cloth bag was held solely by Accused No. 1.
• Procedural Non-Compliance: It was contended that mandatory statutory provisions under Sections 41, 42, 50, 52, and 47 of the NDPS Act were not complied with during the raid and search.
• Non-Commercial Quantity: The defense emphasized that the seized quantity of 1.55 kg of ganja fell well below the commercial threshold.
• Willingness to Comply: Being a permanent resident of Hosakote, Bengaluru, he offered to furnish reliable sureties and abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

Objections by the Prosecution

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

• Joint Apprehension: The investigating agency seized 1.55 kg of ganja from the scene where the petitioner was accompanying Accused No. 1.
• Severity of Offence: The alleged offence carries punishment extending up to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine.
• Risk of Absconding: Alleging that the petitioner was a habitual drug dealer, the prosecution argued that granting bail would risk him absconding or hampering the ongoing investigation.

Judicial Findings and Legal Analysis

The presiding judge, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, evaluated the prosecution records and focused on whether the contraband quantity triggered the strict bail requirements under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Classification of Ganja Quantity

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

• Small Quantity for Ganja: Up to 1,000 grams (1 kg).
• Commercial Quantity for Ganja: 20 kilograms or more.

The court observed that the seized quantity of 1 kg 550 grams falls between 1 kg and 20 kg, placing it firmly in the intermediate quantity category. Additionally, the investigation papers showed that no incriminatory articles were recovered directly from the petitioner’s personal custody.

Applicability of Precedents and Section 37 NDPS Act

The court relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Birbal Prasad v. State of Bihar (2018 11 SCC 488), applying its ratio to hold that:

1. When the quantity of contraband seized is less than commercial quantity, the strict rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply.
2. Factors governing bail revert to regular statutory considerations under the Cr.P.C. unless exceptional adverse circumstances are demonstrated.
3. The major portion of the investigation was concluded as the incriminatory contraband had already been seized and the petitioner’s voluntary statement recorded.
4. The alleged offence does not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment, making further custodial interrogation unnecessary.
5. Prosecution fears regarding flight risk or trial delay can be adequately compensated by imposing stringent bail conditions.

Final Order and Terms of Bail

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, the court allowed Crl.Misc.No.6347/2022 on July 5, 2022, granting regular bail to Naseer Ahmad.

Terms and Conditions Imposed:

1. Bail Bond: The petitioner must execute a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum.
2. Police Station Attendance: He must report before the 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.
3. Jurisdictional Restrictions: He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
4. Non-Interference: He must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or abscond.
5. Investigation Cooperation: He must fully cooperate with the Investigating Officer during the investigation.
6. No Re-Offending: He shall not commit similar offences or any crime while on bail.
7. Identity Verification: He must furnish photo ID proof and local address proof documents for himself and his sureties.
8. Court Appearance: He must appear before the court on all scheduled hearing dates.

The court explicitly noted that any breach of these conditions would entail immediate cancellation of the bail.