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 26th DAY OF August 2022
Crl.Misc.No.8185/2022
Petitioner :
(accused No. 1 is
in J.C )
Kondati Sathya Sai Teja
Ramakrishana Varaprasad
S/o. Kondati Sreenu, Aged about 22
years, R/at No.6­107/2, Main Road,
Enugantivaripeta, Seethanagaram
Madalam, Muggula, Seethanagaram
East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh State
(By Sri. K.H.N.C . Adv.)
V/S.

Respondent :
State by Inspector of Excise,
BUD­6, Sub­Dviison­12,
Banashankari Range,
Bengaluru Urban District
(By Public Prosecutor)
2
ORDER
The present petition U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the
petitioner to enlarge him on bail, in Cr.No.23/2022 of
Banashankari Range Excise PS., registered for the offence
punishable U/Sec. 20(b) (ii) (B), 8(c) of NDPS Act.

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. He has no knowledge of alleged crime and
falsely implanted at the instance of extraneous elements. The
mandatory provisions 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
3
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No.8185/2022
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 in all seized 6 Kgs.,660 grams of
ganja from the possession of the accused.

The accused is
found to be in possession of narcotic substance.

A detailed
mahazar is drawn in the spot. Personal search is conducted.
The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall extend upto 10
years. 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:
4
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:
REASONS
7. POINT NO.1:­ A report submitted by Inspector of
Excise, who is the complainant in this case before the
Banashankari Range.

The contents of the report is as here
under:­
On 13.08.2022 at about 4.50 pm., when the complainant
was in the station he has received credible information that
some persons are selling ganja on 80 feet road, Kariyanapalya,
BSK 6th Stage, from Ganakallu towards Chikkegowdanapalya
side. He has informed the Higher Officer and obtained
permission to conduct raid.

He went to the spot and
apprehended him and on enquiry he has revealed his name
and identity. During search he has seized 6 Kgs., 660 grams
5
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No.8185/2022
of ganja. Thereafter, a detail seizure panchanama was drawn.
A detail report was prepared and submitted before SHO which
is the basis to register the case against the accused in Cr.
8/2022­23 for the offence punishable U/s.20(b) (ii) (B), 8(c) of
NDPS Act.

Thereafter accused was arrested and produced
before jurisdictional Magistrate 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 Sec.41, 42, 50, 52 and
47 of the Act 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 6 Kgs., 660 grams of
seized from the petitioner and other accused.

ganja
is
The offence
6
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
13.8.2022 complainant has conducted raid and apprehended
accused. On looking to the seizure panchanama the drugs
seized from accused is weighing 6 Kgs., 660 grams 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 drug­ganja 1000 grams is
small quantity and 20 Kgs., is commercial quantity.

In this
case the quantum of ganja seized is 6 Kgs. 660 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 – Bail – grant of – non commercial quantity –
quantity involved being only 14 Kgs., of ganja, which is a
non commercial quantity appellant accused not involved in
any other case – in above circumstances, held, appellant
should be released on bail, pending trial – hence, directions
issued to release appellant on bail, on certain conditions.

CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No.8185/2022
7
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 6 Kgs., 660 grams of ganja which is an
intermediate
quantity.

When
the
quantity
is
less
than
commercial quantity, rigors of Sec.20(b) 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 investigation in the case is
concluded as the incriminatory article is already seized from
accused.

The offence alleged against the petitioner is not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
custodial
interrogation
is
not
warranted.

His
Further
Voluntary
statement is already recorded. As per the information provided
8
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:­ 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/­ 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
co­operate
investigation.

5.

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

6.

He shall furnish his photo ID proof and
with
I.O
for
9
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No.8185/2022
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.

[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 26th day of August 2022)
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.