In a significant judicial order delivered on July 21, 2022, the XXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, LL.M., allowed the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6863/2022. The court enlarged Sathpal (Accused No. 1), Chandra Prasad Vetwal alias Bikas Sharma (Accused No. 2), Ramesh Karol (Accused No. 3), and Mohammed Suheal (Accused No. 4) on regular bail in connection with Crime No. 297/2022 registered by the Madanayakanahalli Police Station. The petitioners were facing prosecution for offences punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

Prosecution Allegations and Procedural History

The criminal law was set into motion following a report submitted by the Police Inspector (PI) of Madanayakanahalli Police Station. According to the prosecution, on June 21, 2022, at around 4:30 PM, the PI received credible information that at Prabha Nagar, Makali Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, outside the shop of Sathpal located in the Hotte Ramanna Building, Sathpal’s worker Bikas Sharma and four other individuals were engaged in selling ganja to the public.

Upon receiving the information, the PI registered a case in Crime No. 297/2022 against Sathpal, Bikas Sharma, and four unknown persons under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act. Thereafter, the PI intimated superior officers, obtained permission to conduct a raid, and proceeded to the spot with staff and panchas in the evening. Mounting surveillance, the police team observed six individuals holding plastic covers attempting to sell ganja to the public, with two persons standing beside motorcycles.

The police apprehended the suspect persons, and an inspection of the plastic covers revealed ganja leaves, stems, flowers, and fruits weighing a total of 4 kilograms. Interrogation revealed that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had brought the ganja to sell, while Accused Nos. 5 and 6 assisted in packing and distribution. The police seized the contraband under a spot panchanama and arrested Accused Nos. 1 to 6. The arrested persons were produced before the jurisdictional magistrate and remanded to judicial custody. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 subsequently filed the present joint bail application.

The cause title reflects the background details of the four petitioners:

• Sathpal (Accused No. 1): 53 years, residing at Makali, Bengaluru; native of Beetamada Village, Hisar District, Haryana.
• Chandra Prasad Vetwal alias Bikas Sharma (Accused No. 2): 26 years, residing at Makali, Bengaluru; native of Dhanashreepura Village, Baksa District, Assam.
• Ramesh Karol (Accused No. 3): 25 years, residing at Namali Village, Ratlam District, Madhya Pradesh.
• Mohammed Suheal (Accused No. 4): 23 years, residing at Madavara, Bengaluru; native of Veerapura Village, Begusarai District, Bihar.

Arguments Submitted by Defence Counsel

Appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned advocate Sri M.D.G. presented several grounds seeking enlargement on regular bail:

• False Implication: It was submitted that the petitioners are innocent, law-abiding citizens, and were falsely planted in the case by the complainant police without having any knowledge of the alleged contraband.
• Intermediate Quantity Classification: Defence counsel emphasized that the total quantity of ganja seized (4 kg) falls well below the commercial threshold under the statutory notification.
• Procedural Non-Compliance: The defence contended that mandatory procedural safeguards prescribed under Sections 41, 42, 47, 50, and 52 of the NDPS Act were not complied with during the search, raid, and recovery operations.
• Custody and Address Verification: It was submitted that the petitioners are permanent residents of the addresses provided in the cause title, have deep family roots, and are ready to abide by any conditions imposed by the court and furnish reliable sureties for their regular appearance.

Prosecution Objections

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail petition, advancing the following arguments:

• Seizure of Contraband: Investigating authorities seized 4 kilograms of ganja directly from the joint possession of the accused under a detailed spot mahazar.
• Gravity and Punishment: The alleged offence carries rigorous imprisonment for a term extending up to 10 years along with a fine.
• Habitual Drug Dealing Apprehensions: The prosecution argued that a prima facie case exists against the petitioners, claiming they are habitual drug dealers who, if released on bail, would abscond, tamper with prosecution evidence, and resume illicit drug sales.

Judicial Analysis and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Special Court examined the prosecution papers, statutory provisions, and rival contentions to decide Point No. 1: whether the petitioners made out sufficient grounds for regular bail.

1. Classification of Ganja Quantity

The court referred to Notification S.O. 1055(E) dated October 19, 2001, issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue). Under Entry Sl. No. 55:

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

The court noted that the 4 kilograms of ganja recovered in this case exceeds 1 kg but remains far below 20 kg, placing it firmly in the category of an intermediate quantity.

2. Non-Applicability of Section 37 Rigors and Precedent Analysis

The Special Judge emphasized that when the seized contraband is less than a commercial quantity, the strict statutory restrictions on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply. Consequently, the criteria for considering bail revert to regular statutory principles under the Cr.P.C. framework, unless exceptional adverse circumstances are established by the prosecution.

To reinforce this legal principle, Special Judge Smt. B.S. Jayashree relied on the binding Supreme Court precedent in Birbal Prasad v. State of Bihar [(2018) 11 SCC 488]. In that decision, the Apex Court granted bail to an accused found in possession of 14 kg of ganja (a non-commercial quantity) who had no prior criminal antecedents. Holding that the precedent applied directly to the present facts, the court ruled that the petitioners’ bail plea deserved favorable consideration.

3. Investigation Progress and Custodial Necessity

The court observed that a major portion of the investigation had concluded since the incriminatory contraband was seized and the voluntary statements of the accused recorded. The alleged offences do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment, rendering further custodial interrogation unnecessary. Furthermore, the court held that the prosecution’s apprehensions regarding flight risk or trial delay could be effectively compensated by imposing stringent bail conditions.

It remains a settled principle of law that an order granting bail at the interlocutory stage is purely a procedural relief and does not amount to a final determination of the accused persons’ guilt or innocence, which remains subject to full-fledged trial.

Final Bail Order and Imposed Conditions

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, Special Judge Smt. B.S. Jayashree allowed the petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:

The petition filed by the petitioners under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The petitioners—Sathpal, Chandra Prasad Vetwal alias Bikas Sharma, Ramesh Karol, and Mohammed Suheal—are enlarged on bail in Crime No. 297/2022 of Madanayakanahalli Police Station on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with two sureties for the like sum, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioners shall give attendance before the concerned Investigating Officer once a month, preferably on the first Monday of every month between 10.00 AM and 2.00 PM, till filing of the charge-sheet or further orders, whichever is earlier.
2. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of this court without prior permission.
3. They shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses or abscond.
4. They shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer for investigation.
5. They shall not commit a similar offence or any offence while on bail.
6. They shall furnish their photo ID proof and local address proof document before the court along with photo ID proof of their sureties.
7. They shall appear before the court on all hearing dates.
8. Breach of any of the conditions by the petitioners would entail cancellation of bail.