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 20th DAY OF MARCH, 2024
Crl. Misc.No.2656/2024
Petitioner :
(accused No.1)
Fasil M B, S/o.Basheer M K, 24
years, R/at.Madathiparambil
House, Kattoor PO., Kattur,
Thrissur, Kerala 680702.
(By Sri.AR., Adv.)
V/S.

State by Govindapura PS.

Respondent :
(By Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
The bail petition U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C., filed by the
petitioner to enlarge him on bail, in Cr.No.304/2023 of
Govindapura
PS.,
registered
U/Sec.8(c), 22(c) of NDPS Act.

for
the
offence
punishable
2
2. The grounds urged by the petitioner for grant of bail
are as under:
That the petitioner is 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 offences are 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. The FSL report is received in the case
and
sample
sent
for
analysis
answered
positive
for
metamphetamine. The metamphetamine seized in the case is
intermediary. After completion of investigation, the charge
sheet has been filed. The 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. 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 30.5 grams of MDMA from
3
the accused.

CCHн33
Crl.Misc.No.2656/2024
The offence alleged against the petitioner is
punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term upto 20
years and shall also be liable to fine. The investigation is
pending. There is a primafacie case available against the
petitioner. He is habitual drug dealer. There is primafacie case
made out against petitioner. If petitioner is released on bail, he
will continue the profession of narcotic drug selling, and he
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 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:н The PI Govindapura PS., Bangalore has
put the criminal law into motion.

The gist of the allegation
reads as here under:н
On 10.11.2023 at about 15.30 hours the complainant PI
has received credible information through an informant that
a person is selling drugs at 80 feet road, near Indian Public
School, Vailkavil Housing Coнoperative Society, Nagawara
Village, Bangalore to the public to gain money illegally.

On
receipt of the information, he has informed the matter to the
higher officer, obtained permission to conduct raid. He along
with panchas and staff had been to the spot and mounted
surveillance in the spot and found the accused person. They
apprehended him and on enquiry he has revealed his name
and address. On conducting personal search of the accused
they seized 30.5 grams of MDMA. Thereafter, a detail seizure
panchanama was drawn. The accused is arrested and
produced brought to the Police Station.

A detail report was
prepared & submitted before SHO which is the basis to register
5
CCHн33
Crl.Misc.No.2656/2024
the case against the accused in Cr.No.304/2023 is registered
for the offence punishable U/Sec.8(c), 22(c) of NDPS Act.
Thereafter the accused was produced before jurisdictional
Magistrate and remanded to JC.
8. Now in the present bail petition it is contended that
article which is sent for FSL analysis responded positive the
presence of methamphetamine and negative for the presence of
MDMA. Therefore, it is contended that only 30.5 grams of
metamphetamine seized in the case has to be taken into
consideration and not the quantity shown in the property form
and the mahazar. 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.159 the narcotic drugн
methamphetamine 2 grams is small quantity and 50 grams is
commercial quantity. In this case the quantum of 30.5 grams
of Methamphetamine seized is an intermediate quantity. As per
the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2018 11 SCC
6
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 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.
9. Here in this case the drugs seized by the investigating
agency to the tune of
intermediate
quantity.

Methamphetamine which is an
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 petitions under
regular statues normal, unless the prosecution points towards
exceptional circumstances.

CCHн33
Crl.Misc.No.2656/2024
7
10. The major portion of the investigation in the case is
completed. Further custodial detention is not warranted. The
offence alleged against the petitioner is not punishable with
death or imprisonment for life. Further custodial interrogation
is not warranted. His Voluntary statement is already recorded.
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.
11. 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 allowed.
The petitioner is enlarged on bail on executing
personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/н with two
sureties 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.

8
3.

He shall not commit similar offence or
any offence while on bail.

4.

He shall furnish his photo ID proof and
local address proof document before the
court and photo ID proof of his sureties.

5.

He shall appear before the court on all
hearing dates.

6.

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 20th day of March, 2024]
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.
CN/*