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 5th DAY OF APRIL 2024
Crl. Misc.No.2954/2024
petitioner :
(accused No.1)
Abhay J Adikari, S/o.Jani Adikari, 32
years, R/at.No.8, 4th A Cross, Papaya
Layout, Horamavu, Bengaluru.
(By Sri.RM., Adv.
V/S.

Respondent :
State by Hennur PS.
(By Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
The present petition U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C., is filed by
the petitioner to enlarge him on bail, in Cr.No.128/2024 of
Indiranagar PS., for the offences punishable U/Sec.8(c),
22(c) of N.D.P.S. Act
2. The prevalent grounds urged seeking bail:н
That the petitioner is innocent and law abiding
citizens. He has not committed any offence much less the
2
offence as alleged.

He 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 contraband seized from the
accused persons is not commercial quantity.

He is the
permanent resident of the address stated in the cause title.
He has no criminal antecedent. The petitioner is ready and
willing to abide by any conditions imposed by this court in
the event of grant of bail. He is ready to offer surety for his
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 22.50 grams of MDMA
ecstasy tablets from accused persons. The offences alleged
against
the
petitioner
is
punishable
with
rigorous
imprisonment for a term upto 20 years and shall also be
liable to fine. There is a primafacie case available against the
petitioner. He is habitual drug dealer. There is primafacie
case made out against petitioner. If the petitioner is released
on bail, he will continue the profession of narcotic drug
selling, and he may abscond and tamper evidence of the
3
CCHн33
Crl.Misc.No.2954/2024
prosecution. Hence, sought to reject the bail plea of
petitioner.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and the
prosecution.

5. The points that arise for my consideration are as
here under:
1. Whether petitioner have made out
sufficient grounds to enlarge him on
bail?
2. What order?
6. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: As per the final order for the
following:
REASONS
7. POINT NO.1:н The PI., CCB., has put the criminal
law into motion.

The gist of the allegation reads as here
under:н
On 13.3.2024 at about 3.30 pm., within the limits of
Hennur Police Station when the complainant PI was in the
4
station received credible information from an informant that
at Horamavu main road, near BBMP office, Mamatha Farm,
one person is selling MDMA ecstasy pills to the public. On
receipt of the said information, he has made a note in the
information book, informed the matter to ACP, obtained
permission to conduct raid. He has called the panchas. He
along with panchas and staff had been to the spot and
mounted surveillance in the spot and found the suspect. He
was shown by the informant.
apprehended.

He was surrounded and
On enquiry he has revealed his name and
address. On further probing he has revealed that he is in
possession of contraband MDMA ecstasy pills. On search of
the accused they have seized 22.50 grams of ecstasy pills.
Accused were arrested. A detail report is prepared submitted
before SHO. The said report is the basis to the register case
is against the accused in Crime No.128/2024 for the
offences
punishable
U/Sec.8(c)
22(c)
of
N.D.P.S.

Act
Accused No.1 in his statement has revealed that he has
procured contraband article from one Kenadi @ Ken.
9. The NDPS Act provides deterrent punishment for
various offences relating to illicit trafficking in narcotic
5
CCHн33
Crl.Misc.No.2954/2024
drugs and psychotropic substances. In the recent judgment
of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala Vs.,
Rajesh in (2020) 12 SCC 122 it is observed that
Уreasonable groundsФ means something more than primafacie
grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for
believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence.
The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires
existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in
themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty
of the alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High Court
seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of
Section 37 that in addition to the limitations provided under the
CrPC, or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the
grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under the
NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for.

By making a detail observation in granting the bail to the
accused is incorrect and has set aside the impugned order.
The aforesaid recent judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court
clearly highlights on the aspect that what are all the
circumstances to be considered and has to be evaluated by
the court to consider the bail plea of the accused.

As per
the enunciation of law in the afore said dictums’ it is clear
that no person shall be granted bail unless the two
conditions are satisfied, i.e., the satisfaction
of the court
that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
petitioner are not guilty and that he is not likely to commit
any offence while on bail. In this case 22.50 grams of MDMA
6
ecstasy pills seized from the conscious possession of the
petitioner.

At this stage, there is primafacie material
available against the petitioner in regard to possessing
commercial quantity of contraband at the time of his
apprehension. The learned counsel for petitioner has failed
to place any material before this court that he was not doing
the trade of contraband at the time of his apprehension and
search. In the result, I proceed to hold that the petitioner
herein have not made out any grounds to entertain their
plea for bail. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the
negative.
10. Point No.2:н In the result, I proceed to pass following:
ORDER
The
petition
filed
by
the
petitioner
U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C is hereby rejected.
[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 5th day of APRIL 2024)
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.
CN/*