In a significant legal development, the XXXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru (CCH-35), Sri G. Raghavendra, B.Sc., LL.M., allowed the bail application in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2930/2024. The court enlarged Bikasha Panda (Accused No. 4) on regular bail in connection with Spl.C.No.441/2024 (Crime No. 553/2023) registered by the Konanakunte Police Station for offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

Case Background and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal law was set into motion on December 31, 2023, at approximately 11:00 AM, when C.W.1 (Sri Arunkumar, Police Sub-Inspector, Konanakunte Police Station, Bengaluru) received credible intelligence indicating that four individuals were attempting to sell ganja near Gottigere Toll, NICE Road, within the limits of Konanakunte Police Station.

Following the receipt of the information, C.W.1 recorded the details, registered a First Information Report (FIR) under Crime No. 553/2023 against four unknown persons, and summoned independent panchas. The police team, along with panchas, proceeded to the spot at 12:30 PM and arrived at approximately 1:00 PM.

Upon reaching the scene, the officers observed four individuals near a parked two-wheeler carrying four white plastic bags. When approached by the police, the suspects attempted to flee but were detained. Upon interrogation, the individuals disclosed their identities, including Bikasha Panda (Accused No. 4), aged 21 years, hailing from Bandagonda Village, Kendrapara, Odisha.

The suspects admitted that the plastic bags contained ganja procured from the forests of Odisha. C.W.1 weighed the four plastic bags individually, which yielded a total recovery of 35 kilograms and 750 grams of ganja. The police seized the contraband under a spot seizure mahazar drawn between 1:30 PM and 3:00 PM on December 31, 2023, and arrested all four accused. Sub-Inspector Sri Suhas N.R. (C.W.10) subsequently completed the investigation and filed a formal charge-sheet against Accused Nos. 1 to 4 under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.

Arguments Advanced by the Defence

Learned counsel appearing for Bikasha Panda, Sri Tilak Raj M., submitted several grounds seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.):

• False Implication and Innocence: The petitioner contended that he was innocent of the alleged offence and had been falsely implicated by the investigating agency.
• Individual Quantity vs. Joint Seizure: The defence argued that the 35.75 kg of ganja was recovered across four separate bags (each containing roughly 8 to 10 kg), and that the police combined the bags to project a commercial quantity solely to deprive the accused of bail.
• Parity with Co-Accused: Counsel pointed out that co-accused persons (Accused Nos. 1 to 3) had already been enlarged on bail by the court in Crl. Misc. No. 2484/2024 and Crl. Misc. No. 2613/2024, entitling the petitioner to relief on the ground of parity.
• Procedural Non-Compliance Under Section 52A NDPS Act: The defence strongly highlighted substantial procedural delays in handling the property and conducting inventory certification. Specifically, the Property Acknowledgment (PF No. 218/23 dated December 31, 2023) was submitted to the magistrate only on January 3, 2024—a delay of two days. Furthermore, the 2nd ACMM, Bengaluru, certified the inventory under Section 52A only on January 24, 2024 (a 23-day delay after seizure), and the samples reached the State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL), Bengaluru, on January 29, 2024.

Prosecution Objections

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

• Commercial Quantity Bar: The contraband seized jointly from the accused totaled 35.75 kg of ganja, which exceeds the commercial quantity threshold of 20 kg specified at Entry Sl. No. 55 of Notification S.O. 1055(E).
• Statutory Rigors under Section 37 NDPS Act: The prosecution emphasized that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail cannot be granted for commercial quantity offences unless the court satisfies itself that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.
• Flight Risk: Since Bikasha Panda is a native of Odisha State, the prosecution expressed apprehension that he might abscond, fail to appear for trial, or tamper with prosecution witnesses.

Judicial Analysis and Court Reasoning

The Special Court examined the charge-sheet materials, statutory provisions, and judicial precedents to answer Point No. 1: whether the petitioner satisfied the court that reasonable grounds existed to believe he was not guilty and unlikely to reoffend while on bail.

1. Rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act and “Reasonable Grounds”

The court acknowledged that 35 kg 750 grams of ganja constitutes a commercial quantity, thereby invoking Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Citing the Supreme Court ruling in Union of India v. Shiva Shanker Kesari [(2007) 7 SCC 798], the court noted that “reasonable grounds” implies something more than prima facie grounds and connotes substantial probable cause to believe the accused is not guilty based on the facts and circumstances.

2. Delay in Compliance with Section 52A Mandatory Procedures

The core reasoning for granting bail hinged on the investigating officer’s failure to present the seized contraband before the jurisdictional magistrate without delay for inventory certification and sample drawing as required by Section 52A of the NDPS Act.

The court noted from the record that:

• The contraband was seized on December 31, 2023.
• The property form (PF No. 218/23) was submitted to the magistrate on January 3, 2024 (2 days delay).
• The Section 52A inventory certification by the 2nd ACMM Court occurred on January 24, 2024 (23 days delay).
• The representative samples were received by SFSL, Bengaluru, on January 29, 2024 (4 days post-inventory).

Special Judge Sri G. Raghavendra observed that the investigating agency failed to produce the seized property before the magistrate for inventory certification and drawing of representative samples without delay. This procedural lapse created reasonable grounds under Section 37 of the NDPS Act to consider the bail plea favorably.

3. Addressing Prosecution Apprehensions

Regarding the prosecution’s concern that the petitioner hailing from Odisha might abscond or reoffend, the court held that such fears could be effectively mitigated by imposing stringent conditions under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.

Final Bail Order and Conditions

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, the Special Court allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and ordered the release of Bikasha Panda (Accused No. 4) on bail in Spl.C.No.441/2024 upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the like sum, subject to the following terms:

1. The petitioner/accused No. 4 shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
2. The petitioner/accused No. 4 shall regularly appear before the court.
3. The petitioner/accused No. 4 shall not commit any offences similar to the offences of which he is accused or any other offences.
4. Breach of any of the conditions by the petitioner/accused No. 4 would entail cancellation of bail.