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 23h DAY OF AUGUST 2022
Crl. Misc.No.7960/2022
Petitioner :
(accused No.J.C.)

Mohammad Jahid,
S/o. Mohammed Iliyas,
Aged about 25 years,
Residing At No. 6/1, 3rd Main,
2nd Cross, HGH Layout,
Ganganagar, R.T. Nagar Post
Bangalore­560032.
(By Sri PK.U, Adv).
V/S.

Respondent :
State by Hebbal PS 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.138/2022
of Hebbal
PS., registered for the offence punishable
U/Sec.22(b) of NDPS 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.

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 8 grams of MDMA. 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 dealer. There is
3
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No.7960/2022
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 Hebbal PS., has put the
criminal law into motion. The gist of the allegation reads as
here under:­
4
On 31.7.2022, at 2.45 pm., when the complainant was
on patrolling duty, he has received a credible information
that a person is selling MDMA near Govindappa Garden
railway track, Hebbal, Bangalore.

The complainant has
reported the matter to the ACP, and obtained permission to
conduct raid. He along with his staff and panchas had been
to the spot and apprehended the suspected person.

On
enquiry he has revealed that he is possessing of MDMA. On
personal search he has seized 8 grams of MDMA from the
accused.

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.138/2022
for the offence punishable U/s.22(B) of NDPS Act.

Accused
were 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
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.

5
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No.7960/2022
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 8 grams of MDMA 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
31.7.2022 apprehended the petitioner herein. On looking to
the seizure panchanama the drugs seized is weighing 8
grams of MDMA. 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.134 the narcotic drug­MDMA 10 grams is commercial
quantity.

In this case the quantum of MDMA seized is 8
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:
6
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 8 grams of MDMA 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 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
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No.7960/2022
7
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.,
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
with
I.O
for
8
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.

[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 23th day of August 2022]
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.
CN/*