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 23rd DAY OF AUGUST 2022
Crl. Misc.No.8260/2022
Petitioner :
(accused No.1)
Rijin M.P., S/o Manoj K.M.,
Aged about 23 years, R/at :C/o
suresh, 3rd Cross Kammanahalli
Road, Lingarajapuram.
Also at : Kausalya Nivas, Pulikol,
Fazankavu, Vadakara Nut Street,
Konjikode, Kerala.
(By Sri NP. Adv).
V/S.

Respondent :
State by Suddaguntepalya 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.231/2022
of
Suddaguntepalya
PS.,
registered
punishable U/Sec.20(B)(ii)(b) of NDPS Act.

for
the
offence
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 1 Kg., 50 gram of ganja.
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.

3
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No.8260/2022
There is 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 Suddaguntepalya PS., has
put the criminal law into motion. The gist of the allegation
reads as here under:­
4
On 17.8.2022, at 10.30 am., when the complainant
was discharging duties in the station, he has received a
credible information that on 15.8.2022 in between 11.00
am., to 11.30 am., a person by name Rijin was selling ganja
at Suddaguntepalya park near Bhavaninagar last gate and
he would come on that day also i.e,., 17.8.2022 to sell
ganja. He has intimated the matter to his higher officer and
obtained permission. He along with his staff and panchas
had been to the spot at about 11.15 am., and mounted
surveillance, one person came there with a bag and was
waiting for the customers, when he saw the police he threw
the bag and tried to escape from the spot. The complainant
along
with
his
staff
and
panchas
surrounded
and
apprehended the accused. On enquiry he has revealed that
he is possessing ganja. The bag was opened the contents
were taken out, it was found to be 1 Kg., 50 grams of ganja
on weighing the same. 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.231/2022 for the offence punishable U/s.20(B)(ii)(b)
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No.8260/2022
5
of NDPS Act.

Accused was 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.
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 1 Kg., 50 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
17.8.2022
the
investigating
agency
apprehended
the
petitioner herein. On looking to the seizure panchanama the
drugs seized is weighing 1 Kg., 50 grams of ganja. As per
6
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 1 Kg.,
50 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:
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., 50 grams of ganja
which is an intermediate quantity. When the quantity is less
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.No.8260/2022
7
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
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.

8
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
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 Judgment Writer, directly on the computer, typed
and computerised by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced
by me in Open Court on this the 23rd day of August 2022]
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.
CN/*