In a notable judicial order passed on March 30, 2024, the XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru (CCH-35), Sri G. Raghavendra, B.Sc., LL.M., allowed the regular bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2849/2024. The court enlarged Gokulraj Rajendiran (Accused No. 1) on regular bail in connection with Crime No. 17/2024 registered by the Byappanahalli Railway Police Station, Bengaluru City. The petitioner was facing prosecution for offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a raid conducted on March 9, 2024. According to the prosecution case, at around 11:30 AM, Sri Govindappa D., Police Sub-Inspector (PSI), Bengaluru City Railway Station, was on traffic duty when he received telephonic information from I.R.P./B.N.C. regarding intelligence gathered by the Ganja Detection Squad.

Members of the squad were tracking the illicit transportation of contraband on board Train No. 18463 (Prashanti Express) traveling from Gouribidanoor Railway Station. As the train slowed down near Channasandra Railway Station, officers observed a suspect alight from a general compartment carrying a shoulder bag, walk onto Platform No. 1, and sit on a stone bench.

When squad members approached him, the individual attempted to flee, abandoning the shoulder bag. Officers intercepted him and brought him back to the bag. Upon preliminary inquiry, he disclosed his identity as Gokulraj Rajendiran and admitted that the shoulder bag contained contraband.

The PSI of Byappanahalli Railway Police Station arrived at the platform accompanied by police staff, weighing scales, and laptops. Interrogation revealed that the suspect had purchased the ganja from tribal areas in Thuni Narasimhapete, Andhra Pradesh, intending to transport and sell it in his native place in Tamil Nadu.

After serving notice to independent panchas and informing the suspect of his statutory rights regarding search before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, the officers opened the shoulder bag. Inside, they found 5 bundles wrapped in brown adhesive tape. Weighing the substance revealed a total weight of 6 kilograms and 170 grams of dry ganja. The police also recovered a Nokia keypad mobile phone, a black wallet, and Rs. 100 in cash.

The contraband was seized under a spot mahazar, and the suspect was brought to the Byappanahalli Railway Police Station at 4:30 PM. A formal complaint was lodged at 4:45 PM, resulting in the registration of Crime No. 17/2024 under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.

The details of the petitioner as per court records are:

• Gokulraj Rajendiran (Accused No. 1): Aged 27 years, son of Rajendiran, residing at No. 1/304, Gajanaikanpatti, Kandhili Post, Thirupathur Taluk, Kandili, Vellore, Tamil Nadu.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner

Appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Sri Guruprasad Patil presented several grounds seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.:

• Claim of Innocence: The petitioner maintained that he was entirely innocent and was traveling to Bengaluru from his native place when railway police approached and took him into custody at Sir M. Visvesvaraya Terminal without valid cause.
• Denial of Ownership: The defence submitted that the recovered shoulder bag and contraband did not belong to the applicant and that he was falsely implicated.
• Non-Capital Offence: It was emphasized that the offence alleged under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act does not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment.
• Non-Commercial Quantity: The recovery of 6.17 kg of ganja falls strictly below the commercial threshold, placing the case outside the stringent statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
• Undertaking: The petitioner promised to cooperate with the ongoing investigation and submit to all conditions imposed by the court.

Objections Raised by the Prosecution

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of regular bail, filing detailed objections:

• Prima Facie Material: Case records and seizure mahazars established that the petitioner was apprehended red-handed at a railway platform transporting 6.17 kg of ganja inter-state from Andhra Pradesh to Tamil Nadu.
• Flight Risk and Repeat Offending: Since the petitioner is a resident of Tamil Nadu, the prosecution expressed serious apprehension that if released on bail, he might abscond, fail to appear for trial, or commit similar narcotic offences.

Judicial Analysis and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Special Court examined the seizure records, statutory notifications, and legal provisions to determine Point No. 1: whether the petitioner satisfied the court that reasonable grounds existed to grant bail.

1. Statutory Classification of Contraband Quantity

The court referred to Notification S.O. 1055(E) dated October 19, 2001 (as amended), issued by the Central Government. 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 6 kilograms and 170 grams of ganja recovered in this case exceeds 1 kg but remains well below 20 kg, classifying it as an intermediate quantity.

2. Scheme of Bail Under Section 37 NDPS Act and Cr.P.C.

Special Judge Sri G. Raghavendra analyzed the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Section 37(1)(b) mandates strict twin conditions (requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty) specifically for offences involving commercial quantities or under Sections 19, 24, and 27A.

For intermediate quantity cases punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) (carrying imprisonment up to 10 years), Section 37(2) directs the evaluation back to general bail principles under Sections 437(1)(ii) and 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. Since the offence does not carry a penalty of death or life imprisonment, and there were no prior convictions on record, the strict statutory bar against bail did not apply.

3. Balancing Prosecution Concerns

Addressing the prosecution’s argument regarding the petitioner being a native of Tamil Nadu and posing a flight risk, the court held that such concerns could be effectively safeguarded by imposing mandatory statutory conditions under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C., including the submission of official identification documents.

It remains a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that an order deciding a bail application is procedural in nature and does not constitute an expression on the ultimate guilt or innocence of the accused, which remains subject to trial.

Final Order and Imposed Conditions

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, Special Judge Sri G. Raghavendra allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and ordered the release of Gokulraj Rajendiran (Accused No. 1) on bail in Crime No. 17/2024, upon executing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum, subject to the following terms:

1. The Petitioner / Accused No. 1 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. 1 shall cooperate with the Investigation Officer (I.O.) for investigation.
3. The Petitioner / Accused No. 1 shall produce a copy of his government-issued photo ID card before the court.
4. The Petitioner / Accused No. 1 shall regularly appear before the court.
5. The Petitioner / Accused No. 1 shall not commit any offences similar to the offence of which he is accused or any other offences.
6. Breach of any of the conditions by the Petitioner / Accused No. 1 would entail cancellation of bail.