IN THE COURT OF THE XXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE & SPL. JUDGE (NDPS), BENGALURU. CCH.33. PRESENT: SMT. B.S. JAYASHREE, LL.M., XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS), BENGALURU. DATED: THIS THE 8 th Day OF SEPTEMBER 2022 Crl. Misc.No.8394/2022 Petitioner : Miss.Ritu Singh, d/o.Seema Singh, (accused) 18 years, No.38, I, Bajar Street block, b road, Neelasandra, Viveknagar, Bengaluru 560 047. (By Sri SKJ., Adv.) V/S. Respondent : State by HAL PS (By Public Prosecutor) O R D E R The present petition U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner to enlarge her on bail, in Cr.No.216/2022 of HAL PS., registered for the offences punishable U/Sec.22(b) & 27(b) of N.D.P.S. Act.

2. The grounds urged by the petitioner for grant of bail

are as under: That the petitioner is very innocent and law abiding citizen. She has not committed any offence much less the offence as alleged. she has been falsely implicated by the respondent in this case. Though the alleged offence is non bailable, but is neither punishable with imprisonment for life or death sentence. The procedure contemplated under N.D.P.S. Act not followed while recovery. There is no restriction U/Sec.37 of N.D.P.S. Act for grant of bail. Petitioner is permanent resident of the address shown in the cause title. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions imposed by this court in the event of grant of bail. She is ready to offer surety for her due appearance before this court. Hence, sought to grant bail.

3. The prosecution while opposing the bail petition

contended that the I.O has seized 5 grams of MDMA crystal seized from accused. The offences alleged against the petitioner is punishable with rigorous imprisonment upto 10 years and CCH­33 Crl.Misc.No.8394/2022 3 shall also be liable to fine. There is a primafacie case available against the petitioner. she is a habitual drug dealer. There is primafacie case made out against petitioner. If petitioner is released on bail, she will continue the profession of narcotic drug selling, and she may abscond and tamper evidence of the prosecution. Hence, sought to reject the bail plea of petitioner.

4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the

records.

5. The points that arise for my consideration are as here under:

1. Whether petitioner has made out sufficient grounds to enlarge her on bail?

2. What order?

6. My findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per the final order for the following:

REASONS

7. POINT NO.1:­ The complainant who is the PI, HAL PS.,

Bangalore has put the criminal law into motion. The gist of the allegation reads as here under:­ On 15.8.2022 at 9:15 am, when the complainant was discharging duties in the station he has received information that near Vibhutipura lake, in a vacant space a lady who is aged about 20­25 years is selling contraband which is looking like crystal substance to the public. On confirming about the information, PSI., has registered a case in Cr.No.216/2022 against the said unknown lady for the offence punishable U/Sec.22(b) of NDPS Act. After registering the case he has informed the matter to ACP, Marathahalli, proceeded to the spot along with panchas, staff and investigation tools. He has been to the spot around 10.15 am., and found the suspected person found to be in possession of 5 grams of MDMA. On enquiry the said lady informed that she is Ritu Singh resident of Viveknagar, Bangalore and she is in possession of contraband. The contraband was seized. She during interrogation has stated that she has consumed MDMA. She was also subjected to medical examination. In the examination it is revealed that she has consumed the contraband amphetamine. Thereafter, the petitioner herein is CCH­33 Crl.Misc.No.8394/2022 5 arrested and produced before the court and was remanded to judicial custody.

8. It is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that

she is planted in the case by the complainant police she is unaware of seized drug. The seized article is not commercial quantity. Therefore, NDPS Act is not applicable.

9. It is argued by the prosecution that the petitioner has

committed heinous offence and the drug was seized from her custody. There are prima­facie material available against her.

10. On careful analysis of rival contentions and the

prosecution papers available on record, the investigating agency seized 05 grams of MDMA crystal seized from accused under the seizure panchanama. The petitioner is in judicial custody since the date of her arrest i.e., from 15.8.2022.. On looking to the seizure panchanama the drugs seized is weighing 05 grams of MDMA crystal seized from accused. As per specification of small and commercial quantity of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance issued by Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E) dated 19.10.2001 at Sl.No.134 the narcotic drug ­ MDMA weighing 10 grams is a commercial quantity. In the present case, MDMA crystal seized is 05 grams which is intermediate quantity. As per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2018 11 SCC 488 Birbal Prasad Vs., State of Bihar wherein it is held that: Ss.37 and 20 – Bail – grant of – non commercial quantity – quantity involved being only 14 Kgs., of ganja, which is a non commercial quantity appellant accused not involved in any other case – in above circumstances, held, appellant should be released on bail, pending trial – hence, directions issued to release appellant on bail, on certain conditions. The said case law aptly applies to the case on hand in holding that the contraband seized in the case on hand is intermediate quantity and it is not commercial quantity. In the said circumstances, as per the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court the bail plea of accused to be considered.

11. Here in this case the drugs seized by the

investigating agency is intermediate quantity. The accused herein is not having previous criminal antecedents. She is not a habitual offender. The major portion of investigation in the CCH­33 Crl.Misc.No.8394/2022 7 case is concluded as the incriminatory article is already seized. The offence alleged against the petitioner is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Further custodial interrogation is not warranted. As per the information provided by the petitioner is permanently residing in the address shown in the cause title. The apprehension of the prosecution that she may abscond and may protract the trial could be compensated by imposing stringent conditions. In the result, I answer the point for consideration in the affirmative.

13. Point No.2:­ In the result, I proceed to pass following:

ORDER

The Petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed. The petitioner is enlarged on bail on executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/­ with two sureties for the like sum with following conditions.

1. The petitioner shall give attendance before the concerned I.O., once in a month i.e., preferably on first Monday of every month in between 10.00 am., to 2.00 pm., till filing of charge sheet or further orders whichever is earlier.

2. She shall not leave the jurisdiction of this court without prior permission.

3. She shall not tamper the witness or abscond.

4. She shall co­operate with I.O for investigation.

5. She shall not commit similar offence or any offence while on bail.

6. She shall furnish her photo ID proof and local address proof document before the court and photo ID proof of her sureties.

7. She shall appear before the court on hearing dates without fail.

8. Breach of any of the conditions by the petitioner would entail cancellation of bail.

[Dictated to the stenographer, directly on the computer, typed and computerised by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 8th day of September 2022] (B. S. JAYASHREE) XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE, (NDPS) : BENGALURU. CN/*