In a notable judicial decision, the XXXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru (CCH-35), Sri G. Raghavendra, B.Sc., LL.M., allowed the anticipatory bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2809/2024. The court granted pre-arrest bail protection to Ravi M (Accused No. 2) in connection with Crime No. 32/2023-24/4309SIE1/430909, registered by the Excise Sub-Inspector, Range-51 (Sarjapura), Sub-Division 16, Bengaluru Urban District-8. The petitioner was facing apprehension of arrest for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(A), and 61 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

Case Background and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated on March 5, 2023, at approximately 6:30 PM. Sri Sandeep S.R., Excise Sub-Inspector (ESI), Range-51 (Sarjapura), while on patrolling duty within the limits of Gattahalli Village, received credible telephone information regarding illicit drug sales. The informant reported that an individual speaking Hindi was selling small packets of ganja to local customers opposite Sri Veeranjaneya Temple, Chikkanayakana Halli, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk.

Following standard procedural protocol, the ESI recorded the information in writing, notified his superior officers (the Excise Inspector, Range-51, and the Excise Deputy Superintendent, Sub-Division 16) via telephone, and obtained formal authorization to conduct a raid. Moving toward the location, the officer enlisted two independent panchas at Chathrimara Dinne Circle after serving proper notices.

Upon arriving near the temple, the excise team observed a person waiting on a platform beneath a Peeple tree. Shortly thereafter, a second individual arrived, and the first person handed over a plastic cover. The excise team surrounded both individuals, disclosed the information received, and instructed them to open the cover.

After preparing a record of reasons under Section 42 of the NDPS Act and conducting mutual searches, the officers recovered a black plastic cover containing 33 small packets. Weighing the seized substance along with the plastic packaging yielded a total of 230 grams of dry ganja. During preliminary enquiry, the individuals disclosed their identities, and Accused No. 2 stated that he frequently received ganja from Accused No. 1 for personal consumption. Because the recovered contraband fell under the “small quantity” threshold, the ESI served notices under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), directing the accused to appear for further investigation before seizing the material under a formal mahazar and registering the FIR.

The details of the petitioner as recorded in court documents are:

• Ravi M (Accused No. 2): Aged 29 years, son of Manjunatha, residing at No. 389, 2nd Main, 5th Cross, Krishnappa Nagar, Halanayakanahalli, Bengaluru.

Arguments Advanced by the Defence

Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned advocate Smt. Meenakshi H.V. presented several key grounds seeking pre-arrest protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.:

• Claim of Innocence and False Implication: The petitioner asserted that he was entirely innocent of the alleged offences and had been falsely implicated in the case.
• Small Quantity Classification: The defence emphasized that the total quantity recovered (230 grams) was well below the commercial threshold and constituted a small quantity under statutory notifications.
• Non-Capital Nature of Offence: It was submitted that the alleged offence is not exclusively punishable with death or life imprisonment.
• Apprehension of Arrest: The petitioner expressed a well-founded apprehension that despite the issuance of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notices, excise authorities were making active efforts to locate and arrest him, which would cause severe hardship and humiliation.

Prosecution Objections

The Public Prosecutor filed detailed objections opposing the anticipatory bail petition, submitting that:

• Risk of Re-offending: If enlarged on pre-arrest bail, the petitioner might commit similar offences under the NDPS Act.
• Interference with Investigation: The prosecution expressed apprehension that Accused No. 2 might threaten prosecution witnesses, tamper with evidence, or evade trial proceedings.

Judicial Analysis and Court Reasoning

The Special Court evaluated the case records, statutory definitions, and jurisdictional provisions to determine Point No. 1: whether the petitioner demonstrated sufficient grounds for the issuance of pre-arrest bail directions.

1. Classification of Contraband Quantity

The court referred to Central Government Notification S.O. 1055(E) dated October 19, 2001 (Entry Sl. No. 55), which defines ganja quantities:

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

Since the total recovery from both accused combined was 230 grams, Special Judge Sri G. Raghavendra confirmed that the contraband unambiguously fell within the small quantity classification.

2. Statutory Penalties and Forum Jurisdiction

The court analyzed the statutory framework governing small quantity NDPS offences:

• Section 20(b)(ii)(A) NDPS Act: Prescribes punishment of rigorous imprisonment extending up to one year, a fine extending up to Rs. 10,000, or both.
• Section 36A NDPS Act: Specifies that only offences punishable with imprisonment of more than 3 years are triable exclusively by Special Courts.
• Schedule II Cr.P.C. (Classification of Offences Against Other Laws): Mandates that offences punishable with imprisonment for less than 3 years or fine only are bailable and triable by any Magistrate.

Synthesizing these provisions alongside Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the court established that while small quantity offences are non-cognizable and bailable under general classifications, the statutory framework of the NDPS Act requires formal judicial evaluation, making an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. maintainable to protect personal liberty against imminent arrest.

3. Protection of Personal Liberty

The court observed that the excise officer had originally issued notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. due to the small quantity involved. Given the petitioner’s demonstrated apprehension of arrest and the non-capital nature of the penalties, the court concluded that prosecution concerns regarding witness tampering or trial attendance could be fully addressed through appropriate conditions under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Imposed Conditions

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, the Special Court allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and directed that in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 32/2023-24/4309SIE1/430909, Ravi M (Accused No. 2) shall be released on bail subject to the following terms:

1. The petitioner/Accused No. 2 is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of this order.
2. Upon appearance, the petitioner/Accused No. 2 shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
3. The petitioner/Accused No. 2 shall not threaten or attempt to tamper with prosecution witnesses in any manner.
4. The petitioner/Accused No. 2 shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.