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 3rd DAY OF April 2024
Crl.Misc.No.2931/2024
Petitioner :
(accused No.1)
Koushik H R, S/o.Ravi Kumar H N,
24 years, R/at.Krishnanagara,
Pandavapura, Mandya distruict.
(By Sri TS., Adv.)
V/S.

Respondent :
State by Mahadevapura 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.234/2024 of
Mahadevapura PS, registered for the offence punishable
U/Sec.20(b) of NDPS Act.
2. The prevalent grounds urged seeking bail:­
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 10 Kgs., 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 witnesses.

3
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No.2931/2024
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:
REASONS
7. POINT NO.1:­ The PSI, of Mahadevapura
PS.,
Bangalore has presented the complaint before the SHO. The
gist of the allegation reads as here under:­
4
On
14.3.2024
at
about
4.00
pm.,
when
the
complainant was on patrolling duty he has received credible
information from an informant that near Diesel Shed, KR
Puram Railway Parallel road, 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 10 Kgs. 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.234/2024 is registered against the
accused for the offence punishable U/s.20(b) of 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
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No.2931/2024
5
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 10 Kgs., 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
14.3.2024
apprehended
complainant
accused.

has
On
conducted
looking
to
raid
the
and
seizure
panchanama the drugs seized from petitioner herein is
weighing 10 Kgs., 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
6
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 10 Kgs., 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.

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 10 Kgs., 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
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No.2931/2024
7
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:­ 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
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 3rd day of April 2024)
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.