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 Sabyasachi Behera in connection with a drug possession case registered by the Excise Range, HSR Police Station. The ruling confirms that where the seized contraband falls under the statutory threshold for a “small quantity,” the stringent bail restrictions under Section 37 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 do not apply, and standard bail principles under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) govern the matter.

Background of the Case

The case commenced on June 21, 2022, when an Excise Inspector received credible information at approximately 1:30 PM while on patrolling duty. The report indicated that an individual carrying a black bag was heading toward the Garvebhavipalya Bus Stop on the Bengaluru-Hosur Main Road to sell ganja to the public.

After informing higher authorities and obtaining permission to conduct a raid, the Excise team accompanied by independent witnesses (panchas) arrived at the location and intercepted the suspect. Upon questioning, the individual identified himself as Sabyasachi Behera, aged 24, residing in Jigani, Bengaluru, with a permanent address in Bhadrak district, Odisha. A personal search resulted in the recovery and seizure of 830 grams (with prosecution papers later noting 858 grams) of dry ganja from his possession.

The contraband was seized under a spot mahazar, and Crime No. 41/2021-22 was registered under Sections 8(c) and 20(b)(ii)(a) of the NDPS Act. The petitioner was arrested on June 21, 2022, produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, and remanded to judicial custody.

Contentions of the Petitioner

Represented by advocate Sri M.P., Sabyasachi Behera filed a bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. urging the following grounds:

• Innocence and False Implication: The petitioner submitted that he was innocent, a law-abiding citizen, and had been falsely implicated at the instance of extraneous elements without any knowledge of the alleged crime.
• Procedural Non-Compliance: It was contended that mandatory statutory provisions under Section 50 as well as Sections 41, 42, 52, and 47 of the NDPS Act were not complied with during search and recovery.
• Small Quantity Classification: The defense emphasized that the seized dry ganja weighing 858 grams constituted a small quantity under the NDPS statutory framework.
• No Bad Antecedents: The petitioner stated that he was the sole earning member of his family with no prior criminal record.
• Willingness to Abide by Conditions: He expressed readiness to offer a surety and abide by any conditions imposed by the court to secure his release.

Prosecution’s Objections

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

• Seizure of Contraband: The investigating agency seized 858 grams of dry ganja directly from the physical possession of the petitioner following a personal search and spot mahazar.
• Nature of Offence: The offence alleged carries rigorous imprisonment extending up to 1 year.
• Risk of Absconding: Alleging that the petitioner was a habitual drug dealer, the prosecution argued that if released on bail, he would abscond and hamper the ongoing investigation.

Judicial Findings and Legal Analysis

The presiding judge, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, evaluated the material on record and focused on whether the contraband quantity attracted the strict limitations on bail 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 total recovery of 858 grams of dry ganja was below the 1,000-gram threshold, explicitly categorizing the contraband as a small quantity.

Applicability of Precedents and Section 37 NDPS Act

The court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Birbal Prasad v. State of Bihar (2018 11 SCC 488), applying its legal principles to hold that:

1. When the quantity of contraband seized is less than commercial quantity (and specifically a small quantity), the strict rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply.
2. The consideration for bail reverts to regular statutory principles governing non-commercial offences under the Cr.P.C., unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated by the prosecution.
3. The petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents and is not a habitual offender.
4. The major portion of the investigation was complete as the incriminatory contraband had already been seized from the petitioner.
5. The alleged offence carries punishment extending up to 1 year and is not punishable by death or life imprisonment, making further custodial interrogation unnecessary.
6. The prosecution’s apprehension regarding flight risk can be adequately compensated by imposing appropriate conditions.

Final Order and Terms of Bail

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, the court allowed Crl.Misc.No.6310/2022 on June 30, 2022, ordering the release of Sabyasachi Behera on regular bail.

Terms and Conditions Imposed:

1. Personal Bond & Surety: The petitioner must execute a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- with one surety for the like sum.
2. Jurisdiction Restrictions: He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
3. Non-Interference: He shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses or abscond.
4. Investigation Cooperation: He must cooperate fully with the Investigating Officer during the investigation.
5. Identity Verification: He must furnish photo ID proof and local address proof documents for himself and his surety before the court.

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