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 24 th DAY OF JUNE 2022
Crl.Misc.No.5982/2022
Petitioner :
(accused No.1)
Fareed Khan, S/o Mohammed Khan,
aged about 20 years, R/at
Adigarakallahalli Village, Airtel Tower
Road, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk.
(By Sri L.H.P., Adv.)
V/S.

Respondent :
State by Attibele PS
(By Public Prosecutor)
OR D E R
The present petition U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C., is filed by
the petitioner to enlarge him on bail, in Cr.No.209/2022 of
Attibele
PS.,
registered
for
the
offences
punishable
U/Sec.20(b), (ii), A R/W 8(c) of N.D.P.S. Act.
2. The grounds urged by the petitioner for grant of bail
are as under:
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 no knowledge of alleged crime
and falsely implanted at the instance of extraneous
elements.

The mandatory provisions U/s.50 of NDPS Act
has not been complied.

There are no eye witnesses who
speak about the sale of alleged contraband.

Though the
alleged offence is non bailable, but is neither punishable
with imprisonment for life or death sentence. 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. He has no
bad antecedents. He is the sole bread earner of his family.
Hence, sought to grant bail.

3. The objection raised by the prosecution is that the
investigating agency has seized 300 grams of ganja from the
possession of petitioner herein. The petitioner is found to be
in possession of narcotic drug. A detailed mahazar is drawn
in the spot. Personal search is conducted. The offence
alleged against the petitioner is punishable with rigorous
3
CCH-33
Crl.Misc.No.5982/2022
imprisonment for a term which shall extend upto 1 year.
There is a primafacie case available against the petitioner.
He is an habitual drug dealer.

In the event of grant of bail,
he would abscond and may hamper the investigation.
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 him 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:
4
REASONS
7. POINT NO.1:- A report submitted by PSI of Attibele
PSI., who is the complainant in this case. The contents of
the report is as here under:a) That on 04.06.2022 at about 11.00 AM., when the
complainant was in the station he has received a credible
information that at Anekal taluk, Balluru lake road, near by
Ballur Siram reddy land, road side a person is having Ganja
packets in a plastic cover and trying to sell the same. On
receipt of the information he has
informed to his higher
officer, obtained permission and thereafter, he along with
his staff and panchas went to the spot and apprehended the
accused.

On personal search they seized 300 grams of
ganja. A detail seizure panchanama was drawn. Thereafter,
he has
prepared a detail report which is the basis to
register the case against the accused in Cr.No.209/2022 for
the
offences
punishable
U/Sec.20(b)(ii)A
R/W
8(c)
of
N.D.P.S. Act.
8. It is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner
that he is planted in the case by the complainant police he
5
CCH-33
Crl.Misc.No.5982/2022
is unaware of seized drug. 300 grams of ganja is seized from
the possession of the petitioner is a small quantity.

The
mandatory provisions of Sec.41, 42, 50, 52 and 47 of the
Act are not complied.

He is permanent resident of the
address given in the cause title. In the event of grant of bail
he is ready to abide by the conditions which are being
imposed by this court.

9.

The prosecution opposed the bail plea on the
ground that the offence alleged against the petitioner is
punishable upto 1 year. Ganja seized from the possession of
this petitioner is small quantity. In the event of grant of bail
he is going to abscond and may hamper investigation.

10. On careful analysis of rival contentions and the
prosecution papers available on record, the investigating
agency seized 300 grams of ganja under the seizure
panchanama. The petitioner is in judicial custody since the
date of his arrest i.e., from 04.06.2022. On looking to the
seizure panchanama the drugs seized is weighing 300 grams
of ganja.

As per specification of small and commercial
6
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.55 the narcotic
drugнganja 1000 grams is small quantity and 20 Kgs., is
commercial quantity.

In this case the quantum of ganja
seized is 300 grams which is a small 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 Ц Bail Ц grant of Ц non commercial quantity
Ц quantity involved being only 14 Kgs., of ganja, which is
a non commercial quantity appellant accused not involved
in any other case Ц in above circumstances, held,
appellant should be released on bail, pending trial Ц
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
small 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. What is
the connecting link between the present petitioner and other
accused no material produced at this stage.

7
11.

CCH-33
Crl.Misc.No.5982/2022
Here in this case the drugs seized by the
investigating agency to the tune of 300 grams of ganja which
is a small quantity.

When the quantity is less than
commercial quantity, rigors of Sec.37 of the NDPS Act will
not attract, and factors become similar to bail petition under
regular statues normal, unless the prosecution points
towards exceptional circumstances. The petitioner herein is
not having previous criminal antecedents.

He is not an
habitual offender. The major portion of investigation in the
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.
custodial interrogation is not warranted.

Further
As per the
information provided by the petitioner he is permanently
residing in the address shown in the cause title.

The
apprehension of the prosecution that he 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.

8
12. 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.50,000/- with one surety for the like sum
with following conditions.
1. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of this
court without prior permission.
2. He shall not tamper the witness or
abscond.
3. He shall not commit similar offence or
any offence while on bail.
4. He shall furnish his photo ID proof and
photo ID proof of his sureties.
5.

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 24th day of June 2022].

(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.
CN/*