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 23rd DAY OF AUGUST 2022
Crl. Misc.No.8188/2022
Petitioner :
(accused No.J.C)
Koramani Adhikary,
S/o . Raghunath Adhikary,
Aged about 22years,
Residing at Maisanapura,
Kalabad Village,
K.Nuagan (PS), (Tq)
Ganjam (District)
Odisha 761004,
(By Sri M.K.V , Adv).
V/S.
Respondent :
State by Cantonment Railway
Police station Bangalore City.
(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 in Cr.No.50/2022 of
Cantonment
Railway
PS.,
registered
punishable U/Sec.20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act.
for
the
offence
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.
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. Petitioner
has no criminal antecedents. 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 4 Kgs., 100 grams of
ganja.
The
offences
alleged
against the
petitioner is
punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term upto 20
years and shall also be liable to fine. There is a primafacie
case available against the petitioner. He is habitual drug
3
dealer.
CCH33
Crl.Misc.No.8188/2022
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:
REASONS
7.
Point No.1: The PI of cantonment Railway PS.,
has put the criminal law into motion.
allegation reads as here under:
The gist of the
4
On 8.8..2022, at 3.00 pm., when the complainant was
discharging duties in the station, he has received a credible
information that a person is selling drugs illegaly at
Cantonment Railway station Platform No.1, Bangalore. He
intimated the matter to his higher officer and obtained
permission. He along with his staff and panchas had been
to the spot at about 3.30 pm., and mounted surveillance, he
saw a suspected person showing the bag to the public, on
suspicion they were apprehended and questioned about the
contents of the bag. On enquiry the accused has revealed
that he is possessing ganja.
The bag was opened the
contents were taken out, it was found to be 4 Kgs., 100
grams of ganja on weighing the same. A detail panchanama
was drawn. A report is prepared and submitted before the
SHO., which is the basis to register the case against the
accused in Cr.No.50/2022 for the offence punishable
U/s.20(B)(ii)(b) of NDPS Act. Accused was arrested and
produced before the court.
8.
It is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner
that he was planted in the case by the complainant police
he is unaware of seized drug. The seized article is not
5
CCH33
Crl.Misc.No.8188/2022
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 is
committed heinous offence 4 Kgs., 100 grams of ganja is
seized from the petitioner and other accused. The offence
punishable with imprisonment upto 20 years and with fine.
There are primafacie material available against him.
10.
On careful analysis of rival contentions and the
prosecution papers available on record, it is evident that on
25.7.2022 apprehended the petitioner herein. On looking to
the seizure panchanama the drugs seized is weighing 4
Kgs., 100 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
6
the quantum of ganja seized is 4 Kgs., 100 grams is a
intermediary 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.
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 4 Kgs., 100 grams of
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
prosecution points towards exceptional circumstances.
the
CCH33
Crl.Misc.No.8188/2022
7
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.
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.
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
executing
personal
is
enlarged
bond
for
on
a
bail
on
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.,
8
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
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 Judgment Writer, directly on the computer, typed
and computerised by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced
by me in Open Court on this the 23rd day of August 2022]
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.
CN/*