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 22nd OF MARCH 2024
Crl. Misc.No.2317/2024
Petitioner :
(accused No.1)
Akmal Baba @ Baba @ Billi Baba,
S/o.late Abdul Wajid, 36 years,
No.14, 14th Cross, Modi road, DJ
Halli, Bangalore city.
(By Sri. TGS, Adv.)
V/S.

Respondent :
State by Devarajeevanahalli Police
(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.183/2023 of
Devarajeevanahalli PS., registered for the offences punishable
U/Sec.22(c) & 27B of N.D.P.S. Act .
2. The prevalent grounds urged seeking bail:н
2
That the petitioner is very innocent and law abiding
citizen.

He has not committed any offence much less the
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 procedure contemplated under N.D.P.S.
Act not followed while recovery. There are no reasonable
grounds to believe that the petitioner has committed the
alleged offences. The petitioner is a permanent resident in the
address as 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. 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 15 grams of ecstasy tablets
from the accused.

The contraband seized is a commercial
quantity. There are sufficient materials available against the
petitioner and the said offences are punishable with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which shall extend to 20 years and
3
CCHн33
Crl.Misc.2317/2024
shall also be liable to fine. The investigation is pending. In the
event of his release he may tamper with the prosecution
witnesses. Incriminatory articles were seized from his custody.
He may involve himself in similar offences.

Investigating
agency by complying the provisions prevailed under the act
has seized the contraband from the petitioner. The petitioner
herein would sell the drugs to the younger generation which
may ruin the career of younger generation. With these specific
pleas sought to reject the bail plea of the 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 has 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
4
Point No.2: As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
7. POINT NO.1:н
The PSI, Devarajeevanahalli
P.S.,
Bangalore has put the criminal law into motion. The gist of
the allegation reads as here under:н
On 3.8.2023 at about 5.50 pm., when the complainant
was discharging duties in the police station, he has received
credible information that near Urdu school compound, Tank
Mohalla, D J Halli, Bangalore a person is selling drugs on his
two wheeler.

On receipt of the information he has informed
the matter to ACP obtained permission to conduct raid. He
along with the staff and panchas and investigation tools has
been to the spot and saw the suspected person sitting on a two
wheeler. They apprehended him. On enquiry he has revealed
his name as Akmal Baba. On personal search he seized 15
grams of ecstasy tablets under the mahazar. A detail report
was prepared and submitted before the Station House officer.
Basing on the said report a case in Cr.No.183/2023 is
registered against the accused for the offence punishable
5
CCHн33
Crl.Misc.2317/2024
U/Sec.22(c) & 27B of N.D.P.S. Act. Thereafter, the accused
was produced to the court and remanded to J.C.
8.

On careful analysis of rival contentions and the
prosecution papers available on record, it is evident that on
3.8.2023 complainant has conducted raid and apprehended
accused.

On looking to the seizure panchanama the drugs
seized from petitioner is weighing 15 grams of ecstasy tablets.
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 drugнMDMA 0.5 grams is
small quantity and 10 grams is commercial quantity. In this
case the quantum of 15 grams of ecstasy tablets seized is
commercial quantity.
9. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the
accused that test kit is not taken to the spot and no field test
is conducted.

Further the complainant police have falsely
implanted the accused in the case. The petitioner is having no
bad antecedents.

The accused is subjected to medical
6
examination. In the instant case the seizing officer has seized
commercial quantity of contraband.

The accused herein is
subjected to medical examination. As per the medical report
he has consumed contraband i.e., Tetra Hydro Cannabinoids.
10. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for
accused that no field test is conducted is a matter to be
adjudicated at the time of full fledged trial.

Now, the FSL
report is available before the court which clearly reads that the
contraband seized from the accused s MDMA.
11. The NDPS Act provides deterrent punishment for
various offences relating to illicit trafficking in narcotic 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 prima
facie 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
7
CCHн33
Crl.Misc.2317/2024
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.

Further in the judgment Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of State of MP Vs., Kajad reported in 2001(7)SCC 673 while
considering an appeal against an order of the High Court
allowing the second bail petition of the respondent who was
petitioner under the NDPS Act has held that :
“5. ………….. Negation of bail is the rule and its grant an
exception under subнclause (ii) of clause (b) of Section 37(1).
For granting the bail the court must, on the basis of the record
produced before it, be satisfied that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the
offences with which he is charged and further that he is not
likely to commit any offence while on bail. It has further to be
noticed that the conditions for granting the bail, specified in
clause (b) of subнsection (1) of Section 37 are in addition to the
limitations provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure or
any other law for the time being in force regulating the grant
of bail. Liberal approach in the matter of bail under the Act is
uncalled for.Ф
In the recent judgment of NCB V/s Mohit Agarwal in
Crl.A.1001н1002 of 2022, dated 19.07.2022 in the said case
the appellant NCB being aggrieved by the order of post arrest
grant of bail to the accused by the HonТble High Court of Delhi
has impugned order of bail before the HonТble Apex Court. In
8
the said case HonТble Apex court on appreciating the various
parameters of grant of bail at para 18 of the order has
observed has hereunder:
In our opinion the narrow parameters of bail available
under Section 37 of the Act, have not been satisfied in the
facts of the instant case. At this stage, it is not safe to
conclude
that
the
respondent
has
successfully
demonstrated that there are reasonable grounds to believe
that he is not guilty of the offence alleged against him, for
him to have been admitted to bail. The length of the period
of his custody or the fact that the chargeнsheet has been
filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not
considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds
for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of the
NDPS Act.

In the said case accused is prosecuted for the offences
punishable U/s.8, 22 and 29 of NDPS Act. Accused No.1 and 2
were apprehended and 20 Kgs of Tramadol tablets were seized.
During follow up action basing on the disclosure statement,
raiding team proceeded to the godown of pramod jaipuria and
conducted a search during which a cache of drugs covered
under the NDPS Act, were recovered. The said drugs included
6,64,940 tablets of different psychotropic substances including
9
CCHн33
Crl.Misc.2317/2024
Tramadol, Zolpidem and Alprazolam tablets/capsules weighing
around 328.82 Kgs, 1400 Pazinc Injections amounting to 1.4
ltrs and 80 Corex Syrup bottles weighing 8 ltrs. Another 9,900
tablets weighing 990 grams., were recovered during the search
conducted by the NCB officials at the premises of the coн
accused, Manoj Kumar at Ludhiana. In the said case the
accused has been granted bail by HonТble High Court which
has been held to be incorrect it is observed further that the
length of the period of custody of a accused or the fact that the
charge sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are
by themselves not considerations that can be treated as
persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
12.

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 is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail. Here in the present case investigating
10
agency has seized 15 grams of ecstasy tablets from the
petitioner. The quantity of contraband
seized is commercial
quantity. At this stage, there is primafacie material available
against the petitioner in regard to the possession of narcotic
drug. Learned counsel for petitioner has failed to place any
material before this court that he was not in possession of
NDPS article at the time of his apprehension and search. In
the result, I proceed to hold that the petitioner herein has not
made out any grounds to entertain his plea for bail.
Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
13. Point No.2:нIn 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 22nd day of March, 2024]
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.
CN/*