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 8th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
Crl.Misc.No.8632/2022
Petitioner :
(accused)
Pandi S, S/o.Singarasu, 39 years,
No.4/48, Middle Street,
therappathupatti Grama, Rangappa
Chakra Post, Nelakot Taluk, Dindigal
district, Tamil Nadu 624 220.
(By Sri S.K.A., Adv.)
V/S.
Respondent :
State by Inspector of Excise,
Shivajinagar Range No.13.
(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.8/202223 of
Shivajinagar Excise Range 13, registered for the offence
punishable U/Sec.8(c), 20(ii)(B) of NDPS Act.
2. The grounds urged by the petitioner for grant of bail
are as under:
2
That the petitioner is innocent of commission the
alleged offences and have got valid and tenable defense.
There is no eyewitnesses to say that the accused was in
actual physical possession of the ganja. The petitioner hails
from respectable family and has no bad antecedents. The
petitioner is in judicial custody since the date of his arrest
and he is no more required as major portion of the
investigation is completed.
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
antecedents.
before
this
court.
He
has
no
bad
He is the sole bread earner of his family.
Hence, sought to grant bail.
3. The objection raised by the prosecution is that the
investigating agency has in all seized 6 Kgs., 978 grams of
ganja from the possession of the accused persons. 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
CCH33
Crl.Misc.No.8632/2022
3
available against the petitioner.
dealer.
He is an habitual drug
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?
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 complainant is the Excise
Inspector of Shivajinagar. He has put the criminal law into
motion.
On 26.8.2022 when he was discharging duties in the
office
at
about
2.45
pm.,
he
has
received
credible
4
information that one Pandi S/o.Singarasu is carrying
Traveler bags and is standing at cantonment railway station
platform No.1. In the said bags he is carrying contraband
dry ganja.
On confirming about the information he has
informed the matter to his higher officer and obtained
permission to conduct raid. He along with staff had been to
the spot and found the suspected person holding a traveler
bag. On enquiry the said person has revealed his name as
Pandi, S/o.Singarasu. His traveler bag was checked. In the
said bag there is contraband ganja. On weighing the ganja
in one bag it was 4 Kgs., and in another bag 2.978 Kgs., of
ganja was found.
In all 6.978 Kgs., of ganja was seized
under the mahazar. He has seized the same under seizure
panchanama. The accused was arrested and a detail report
was prepared and submitted before SHO.
Basing on the
report, a case in Cr.08/202223 is registered for the
offences punishable U/s.8(c) 20(b)(ii)(b) of NDPS Act.
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,
5
CCH33
Crl.Misc.No.8632/2022
42, 50, 52 and 47 of the Act are not complied.
He is
permanent resident 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 6 Kgs., 978 grams of ganja
is seized from the petitioner and other accused. The offence
punishable with imprisonment upto 10 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
26.8.2022 complainant seized 6 Kgs., 978 grams of ganja
and apprehended the accused. 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
the quantum of ganja seized is 6 Kgs., 978 grams of ganja
is an intermediate quantity. As per the decision of Hon’ble
6
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 6 Kgs., 978 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.8632/2022
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. 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.,
preferably on first Monday of every month in
between 10.00 am., to 2.00 pm., till filing of
8
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 stenographer, directly on the computer, typed and
computerised by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me
in Open Court on this the 8th day of September 2022)
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.