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 11th DAY OF JANUARY 2023
Crl.Misc.No.66/2023
Petitioner :
(accused No.1)
Mubarak Sharif, W/o.late Isak Sharif,
26 years, No.Nil, I Cross, Near Auto
Stand, Old Guddadahalli, Mysore
road, Bengaluru.
(By Sri Rama Rao.S, Adv.)
V/S.

Respondent :
State by Chamarajpet 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.155/2023 of
Chamarajpet
PS.,
registered
for
the
offence
U/Sec.20(b) of NDPS Act.
2. The prevalent grounds urged seeking bail:­
punishable
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. The contraband seized is not
commercial quantity. 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 1 Kg., 600 grams of ganja
which is a commercial quantity. 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
3
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No.66/2023
event of his release he may tamper with the prosecution
witnesses. 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:
4
REASONS
7. POINT NO.1:­ The PSI, of Chamarajpet PS., Bangalore
has presented the complaint before the SHO. The gist of the
allegation reads as here under:­
On 13/12/2022 at 4.00 pm., when the complainant was
discharging duty in the police station he has received credible
information that in Azad Nagar, near the road next to Kudre
Park, Poojamma circle one person wearing green colour full
sleeves sweater and green and black night pant is selling ganja
on a white Honda Activa scooter bearing No.KA 05 HY 5699.
After receiving the information he has informed to his superior
officer obtained permission and he along with panchas and
staff went to the spot and apprehended the suspected person.
On personal search he seized 1 Kg.,600 grams of ganja under
detail mahazar. The accused was arrested and a detail report
is submitted. Basing on the report, a case in Cr.No.155/2022
registered for the offence punishable U/Sec.20(b) of N.D.P.S.
Act.

CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No.66/2023
5
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 1 Kg., 600 grams of
ganja
is
seized from the petitioner. The offence punishable with
imprisonment upto 10 years and with fine. There are prima­
facie material available against them.
10.

On careful analysis of rival contentions and the
prosecution papers available on record, it is evident that on
13/12/2022
complainant
has
conducted
raid
and
apprehended accused. On looking to the seizure panchanama
the drugs seized from petitioner herein is weighing 1 Kg., 600
grams of ganja. As per specification of small and commercial
6
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 drug­
ganja 1000 grams is small quantity and 20 Kgs., is commercial
quantity. In this case the quantum of ganja seized is 1 Kg.,
600 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 1 Kg., 600 grams of ganja which is an
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No.66/2023
7
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 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.

8
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
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 11th day of JANUARY 2023)
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.