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 Prasad Limma (Accused No. 1) in connection with a drug possession case registered by the Rajagopalanagar Police Station. The ruling confirms that intermediate quantities of contraband do not trigger the strict statutory bar under Section 37 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, allowing regular bail principles under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to apply.

Background of the Case

The case commenced on August 23, 2022, when the Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) of Rajagopalanagar Police Station received credible information at around 12:45 PM. An informer reported that a person was selling ganja in an open space near a car wash in GKW Layout, Bengaluru.

After informing higher officers and securing approval, the PSI accompanied by police personnel and independent witnesses (panchas) conducted a raid at the location. They spotted and apprehended a suspect, who identified himself as Prasad Limma, aged 36, residing in Gajapati district, Odisha. A personal search led to the recovery and seizure of 5 kilograms and 60 grams of ganja.

The contraband was seized under a spot seizure panchanama, and Crime No. 307/2022 was registered under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. The petitioner was arrested, produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, and remanded to judicial custody.

Contentions of the Petitioner

Represented by advocate Smt. B.L.S.S., Prasad Limma filed a bail petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. urging the following grounds:

• Innocence and False Implication: The petitioner asserted that he was an innocent, law-abiding citizen falsely implicated by the police with no knowledge of the alleged crime.
• Procedural Non-Compliance: It was argued that mandatory statutory safeguards under Sections 41, 42, 50, 52, and 47 of the NDPS Act were not complied with during the search and recovery.
• Non-Commercial Quantity: The defense emphasized that 5.06 kg of ganja falls below the commercial quantity threshold.
• Personal Circumstances: The petitioner stated that he had no prior criminal antecedents and was the sole breadwinner for his family.
• Willingness to Comply: He expressed full readiness to offer sureties and abide by any conditions imposed by the court to secure his release.

Prosecution’s Objections

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

• Seizure of Contraband: Police recovered 5 kg 60 grams of ganja directly from the physical custody of the petitioner following a personal search and spot mahazar.
• Severity of Offence: The offence carries a punishment of rigorous imprisonment extending up to 10 years 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 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 under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Classification of Contraband 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 5 kg 60 grams of ganja falls between 1 kg and 20 kg, placing it firmly in the intermediate quantity category.

Applicability of Precedents and Section 37 NDPS Act

The court relied on the landmark Supreme Court decision in Birbal Prasad v. State of Bihar (2018 11 SCC 488), where bail was granted for possession of 14 kg of ganja (a non-commercial quantity) in the absence of prior criminal records.

Applying this precedent, Judge B.S. Jayashree observed:

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. Bail considerations for non-commercial quantities revert to regular statutory principles under the Cr.P.C. unless exceptional circumstances exist.
3. The major portion of the investigation was complete 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.9109/2022 on September 28, 2022, ordering the release of Prasad Limma on regular bail.

Terms and Conditions Imposed:

1. Personal 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 charge sheet is filed or further orders are issued.
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.