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.2997/2024
Petitioner :
(accused No.1)
Fayaz Ahmed, S/o.Irshad Ahmed, 29
years, No.84/3, Munibaiarappa
Block, Devarajeevana halli,
Bengaluru North, Arabic College,
Bengaluru 560 045.
(By Sri PGV., Adv.)
V/S.

Respondent :
State by Devarajeevanahalli 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.105/2024 of
Devarajeevanahalli PS, registered for the offence punishable
U/Sec.20(b) of NDPS 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.
seized
is
not
commercial
quantity.

The contraband
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 7 Kgs., 800 grams of
ganja. There are sufficient material available against the
petitioner, and the said offences are punishable with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than 10 years which may extend to 20 years and shall also
be liable to fine. The investigation is pending. In the event
of his release he may tamper with the prosecution
3
CCHн33
Crl.Misc.No.2997/2024
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 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 PSI, of Devarajeevanahalli
PS.,
Bangalore has presented the complaint before the SHO. The
gist of the allegation reads as here under:н
On 8.3.2024 at about 3.00 pm., when the complainant
was on patrolling duty he has received credible information
from an informant that near Edga Mohalla ground, Modi
Road, D J Halli, Bangalore a person is engaged in selling
prohibited drug to the public. On receipt of the information,
he has informed the matter to the higher officer and
obtained permission to conduct raid. He has secured the
panchas, he along with panchas and staff went to the spot
and apprehended the accused. On enquiry he has revealed
his name and address. When he was questioned about the
contents of the bag in his possession, he has stated that he
is carrying ganja.

The said ganja was seized and on
weighing it came around 7 Kgs., 800 grams.

A detail
mahazar is drawn and incriminatory ganja is seized.

The
accused was arrested and a detail report is submitted.
Basing on the report, a case in Cr.No.105/2024 is registered
against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.20(b) of
5
CCHн33
Crl.Misc.No.2997/2024
NDPS Act. The accused was produced before the court and
remanded to judicial custody.
8. It is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner
that he is planted in the case by the complainant police he
is unaware of seized drug. The seized article is not
commercial quantity.

The mandatory provisions of search
and seizure are not complied. He is permanent residents 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. It is argued by the prosecution that the petitioner
has committed heinous offence 7 Kgs., 800 grams of ganja is
seized from the petitioner. he offence punishable with
imprisonment upto 10 years and with fine. There are
primafacie material available against them.
10. On careful analysis of rival contentions and the
prosecution papers available on record, it is evident that on
8.3.2024 complainant has conducted raid and apprehended
accused. On looking to the seizure panchanama the drugs
seized from petitioner herein is weighing 7 Kgs., 800 grams
6
of ganja. 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.55 the narcotic
drugнganja 1000 grams is small quantity and 20 Kgs., is
commercial quantity. In this case the quantum of ganja
seized is 7 Kgs., 800 grams
grams
of ganja is an
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 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.
11. Here in this case the drugs seized by the
investigating agency to the tune of 7 Kgs., 800 grams of
CCHн33
Crl.Misc.No.2997/2024
7
ganja which is an intermediate 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
petitions
under
regular
statues
normal,
unless
the
prosecution points towards exceptional circumstances.
12.

The major portion of the investigation is
concluded. 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 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.

13. 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
executing
personal
is
enlarged
bond
for
on
a
bail
on
sum
of
8
Rs.1,00,000/н 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.

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

3.

He shall not tamper the witness or abscond.

4.

He
shall
coнoperate
investigation.

5.

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

6.

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

7.

He shall appear before the court on all
hearing dates.

8.

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

with
I.O
for
[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.