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 19th DAY OF August 2022
Crl.Misc.No.7248/2022
Petitioner :
(Accused No. 1 )
Narayana Das, S/o Jummar Das
Aged about 37 years, R/at 3rd Cross
Pattegarpalya, Bengaluru.
Native address:
Vaishnav Colony, Shairgad Village,
Jodhpur District, Rajasthan.
(By Sri. Doddaiah .R Adv.)
V/S.
Respondent :
State by Govindarajanagar 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.123/2022 of
2
Govindarajnagar PS., registered for the offence punishable
U/Sec.20(b), 18(a) of N.D.P.S. 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 U/s.20(b) of NDPS Act 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 no bad antecedents. He is the sole
bread earner of his family. Hence, sought to grant bail.
CCH33
Crl.Misc.No.7248/2022
3
3. The objection raised by the prosecution is that the
investigating agency has in all seized 512 grams of opium 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:
1. Whether petitioner has made out
sufficient grounds to enlarge him on
bail?
2. What order?
4
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 PSI, ., who is the
complainant in this case before the Govindarajnagar PS. The
contents of the report is as here under:
On 5.07.2022 at about 1.45 pm., when the complainant
was in the station he has received credible information from an
informer that one person is
present near Big Gutter,
Pattegarpalya possessing opium and selling the same to the
public.
He has informed the Higher Officer and obtained
permission to conduct raid. He went to the spot and saw the
suspected person. He has apprehended him and on enquiry
and during personal search he has seized 512 grams of opium.
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.213/2022
CCH33
Crl.Misc.No.7248/2022
5
for the offence punishable U/s.20(B), 18(a) 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 512 grams of opium is seized from
the petitioner and other accused. 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
6
5.07.2022 complainant has conducted raid and apprehended
accused. On looking to the seizure panchanama the drugs
seized from accused is weighing 512 grams of opium. 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.92 the narcotic drugopium 25 grams is
small quantity and 2.5 Kgs., is commercial quantity. In this
case the quantum of opium seized is 512 grams of opium 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 opium, 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
CCH33
Crl.Misc.No.7248/2022
7
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
512 grams of opium
intermediate
When
quantity.
the
quantity
which is an
is
less
than
commercial quantity, rigors of Sec.20(b) & 18(a) 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
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
8
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
local address proof document before the
court and photo ID proof of his sureties.
with
I.O
for
9
CCH33
Crl.Misc.No.7248/2022
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 19th day of August 2022)
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.
CN/*