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 9th DAY OF DECEMBER 2022
Crl.Misc.No.11911/2022
Petitioner :
(accused No.4)
Imtiyas, S/o.Dhastigiri, a/a 34
years, Ra/t No.303, Shubha
Comforts, Kacharakanahalli, Near
Shell Petrol Bunk, Bengaluru
(By Sri Balakrishan Jagtap., Adv.)
V/S.
Respondent :
State by NCB., Bangalore.
(By Spl.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.NCB F
No.48/1/29/2022/BZU
registered
for
the
offences
punishable U/Sec.8(c), 20(b) (ii)(A), 27, 28 and 29 of
N.D.P.S. Act.
2
2. The grounds urged by the petitioner for grant of bail
are as under:
That the petitioner is very innocent and law abiding
citizen. He has not committed any offence much less the
offence as alleged. The petitioner had no knowledge of the
drugs and about the incident. There is no evidence that the
petitioner is involved in the case. The ganja alleged to have
been seized to the tune of 581 grams from the 4 parcels
does not belongs to him. The said article was seized by the
Respondent IO., at Sri Maruthi Courier Pvt., Ltd., Hebbal
which is far away from the residence of petitioner.
Petitioner is either in possession or having the knowledge of
the drug. He has been falsely implanted in the case.
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.
CCH33
Crl.Misc.No.11911/2022
3
3. The objection raised by the prosecution to the bail
application of the petitioner is as hereunder:
the IO., NCB has seized 581 grams of flowering and
fruiting tops of cannabis believed to be ganja from 4 parcels
at Sri Maruthi Courier services Pvt., ltd., Bangalore, Hebbal.
259 grams from parcel document No.22062150009795, 108
grams from parcel No.22062150009790, 105 grams
parcel No.22062150009789,
109
grams
from
from parcel
No.22062150009797. In regard to seizure of parcel a case
has been registered in NCB Cr.No.48/129/2022/BZU. The
receivers of the 4 parcels namely Rebacca Maggie Pereira,
Vanshika Kasera, Saikar Bhattacharyya and Imtiyaz were
intercepted during follow up action and were summoned for
enquiry. Their statements came to be recorded. In the
statement accused
No.4 he has stated that he has not
booked the parcel.
Accused No.1 has ordered the ganja.
When he went along with accused No.1 to collect the parcel
he along with accused
No.1 was apprehended.
consuming ganja occasionally.
Accused
He is
No.1 is also
4
working in the same company where he is working. He is
working as a Client Service Manager in ACME Experience
Event Company.
The investigating agency has seized 581
grams of ganja from the the 4 parcels addressed to the
receivers.
The
seizure
was
made
before
independent
witnesses. He has also consumed ganja. The investigation
is in progress. In the event of grant of bail, he may abscond
and may hamper the investigation. There is a primafacie
case available against the petitioner. 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.
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
CCH33
Crl.Misc.No.11911/2022
5
Point No.2: As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
7. POINT NO.1: A report submitted by IO., NCB., who
is the complainant in this case. The contents of the report
is as here under:
the IO., NCB has seized 581 grams of flowering and
fruiting tops of cannabis believed to be ganja from 4 parcels
at Sri Maruthi Courier services Pvt., ltd., Bangalore, Hebbal.
259 grams from parcel document No.22062150009795, 108
grams from parcel No.22062150009790, 105 grams
parcel No.22062150009789,
209
grams
from
from parcel
No.22062150009797. In regard to seizure of parcel a case
has been registered in NCB Cr.No.48/129/2022/BZU. The
receivers of the 4 parcels namely Rebacca Maggie Pereira,
Vanshika Kasera, Saikar Bhattacharyya and Imtiyaz were
intercepted during follow up action and were summoned for
enquiry. Their statements came to be recorded. Basing on
the statement of the receivers they have been prosecuted in
the aforesaid case for the offences punishable U/s.8(c)
6
r/w.Sec.20(b)(ii)(a), 27, 28 and 29 of NDPS Act. The present
petitioner is accused No.4 in the case.
In the statement accused No.4 he has stated that he
has not booked the parcel. Accused No.1 has ordered the
ganja. When he went along with accused No.1 to collect the
parcel he along with accused No.1 was apprehended. He is
consuming ganja occasionally. Accused
No.1 is also
working in the same company where he is working. He is
working as a Client Service Manager in ACME Experience
Event Company.
8. It is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner
that the petitioner had no knowledge of the drugs and about
the incident. There is no evidence that the petitioner is
involved in the case. Voluntary statement of the petitioner
is recorded after the seizure.
booked
by
present
The present parcel was not
petitioner.
Petitioner
is
no
more
connected to this case. Petitioner is either in possession or
having the knowledge of the drug. The drug is not in the
baggage of the petitioner. He has been falsely implanted in
the case. He is permanent resident of the address given in
CCH33
Crl.Misc.No.11911/2022
7
the cause title. The quantity of ganja seized in the case is
small quantity. 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 there was seizure of 581 grams of ganja from
the parcel.
The seizure was made before independent
witnesses. The receivers were intercepted. Their statement
came to be recorded.
They are also consumers of ganja.
The investigation is in progress. 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 581 grams of ganja under the seizure
panchanama. The petitioner is in judicial custody since the
date of his arrest i.e., from 2.12.2022.
On looking to the
seizure panchanama the drugs seized is weighing 581 grams
of ganja seized from the parcels.
As per specification of
small
of
and
commercial
quantity
narcotic
drug
or
psychotropic substance issued by Ministry of Finance
8
Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E) dated
19.10.2001 at Sl.No.55 the narcotic drugganja 1000 grams
is small quantity and 20 Kgs., is commercial quantity. In
this case the quantum of ganja seized from the parcel
addressed to present petitioner is 581 grams which is a
small quantity. The present petitioner has not booked the
parcel. The parcel is booked by accused No.1 in the case.
He has consumed the contraband along with accused No.1.
he is working with accused No.1.
11.
Here in this case the drugs seized by the
investigating agency to the tune of 581 grams of ganja from
the four parcels 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
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. Further custodial interrogation is
CCH33
Crl.Misc.No.11911/2022
9
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,
in
I
answer
the
point
for
consideration
the
affirmative.
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
10
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 9th DAY OF DECEMBER 2022].
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.
CN/*