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 13th DAY OF DECEMBER 2022
Crl.Misc.No.11392/2022
Petitioner :
(accused No.1)
Sathya Pradhan, S/o.Nidhi Pradhan,
a/a 51 years, No.6, near Blue Line
Bakery, Near Water Plant,
Channanayakanahalli road,
Avalahalli, Old Madras Road, KR
Puram, Bangalore .
(By Sri.M.V.Murthy., Adv.)
V/S.

Respondent :
State by Indiranagar Police Station,
Bangalore
(By Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
This is the second bail petition U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.,
filed
by
the
petitioner
to
enlarge
him
Cr.No.270/2021 (Spl.C.C.No.1103/2022) of
on
bail
in
Indiranagar
PS., for the offence punishable U/Sec.20(C) of N.D.P.S. 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 is not followed while recovery. There is
no restriction U/Sec.37 of N.D.P.S. Act for grant of bail.
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 32 Kgs 284 grams 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
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.11392/2022
3
dealer.

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 Negative
Point No.2: As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
7.

POINT
NO.1:­
The
complainant
police
have
prosecuted the petitioner in crime No.270/2021 for the
offence punishable U/s.20(c) of NDPS Act.

4
On
30.12.2021
at
about
2.05
pm.,
when
the
complainant was in Station, he has received a credible
information that two persons are selling ganja in a bag at Sky
walk near bus stop, at Domlur flyover, Domlur.
informed
the
permission,
he
matter
along
to
his
with
higher
panchas
officer,
and
He has
obtained
staff
and
investigation tools went to the spot around 2.55 p.m., On
mounting surveillance in the spot, he has seen the said
persons moving suspiciously, one among them absconded.
Another person who was there was apprehended and on
enquiry he has revealed his name and address.

During
search of the bag, in all 32 Kgs 284 grams of ganja was
found.

The said ganja was seized under detail mahazar.

Thereafter, he has prepared a detail report and submitted
before the SHO, which is the basis to register the case against
the accused in Cr.No.270/2021 for the offence punishable
U/s.20(c) of NDPS Act. Accused was arrested and produced
before the learned Magistrate. He was remanded to judicial
custody. The present petitioner is accused No.1 in the case.

8.

It is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner
that he is planted in the case by the complainant police he
5
is unaware of seized drug.

CCH­33
Crl.Misc.11392/2022
The seized articles are not
commercial quantity. Therefore, NDPS Act is not applicable.

9. It is argued by the prosecution that the petitioner
has committed heinous offence and the drugs were seized
from his custody. There are prima­facie material available
against him.

10. On careful analysis of rival contentions and the
prosecution papers available on record, the investigating
agency seized 32 Kgs 284 grams of ganja from accused
under the seizure panchanama. The present petitioner is
arrested on 30.12.2021. 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 the present
case
32 Kgs 284 grams of ganja seized is commercial
quantity.
11.

The NDPS Act provides deterrent punishment
for various offences relating to illicit trafficking in narcotic
6
drugs and psychotropic substances.
Hon’ble
High
Court
of
In the judgment of
Karnataka
in
Crl.Petition
No.5358/2015 State of Karnataka Vs., D.B.Sandeepa
dt.3.3.2016 has observed that mere filing of charge sheet
against persons accused of heinous offences cannot be the
reason to release them on bail. The trial courts will have to
keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex
Court from time to time for examining the nature in gravity
of the offences, severity of punishment in the event of
conviction, danger of absconding if released on bail, and
facts and circumstances in each case before granting bail to
the accused. The Hon’ble High Court passed the order while
canceling the bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge.
Here in this case there is seizure of commercial quantity of
contraband from the petitioner. Mere filing of charge sheet
in a case of heinous offence is not a ground to enlarge him
on bail.
At this stage, it is necessary for me to refer to the
judgment
of
Hon’ble
Apex
Court
in
Crl.

Appeal
No.1043/2021 dated 22.9.2021 in the case Union of
India through NCB., Lucknow Vs., Mohammed Nawaz
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.11392/2022
7
Khan wherein the NCB., Lucknow has challenged the order
of grant of bail to the accused by the Hon’ble High Court of
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench.
Apex Court
In the said case the Hon’ble
pleased to make a detail discussion on the
criteria to be considered for grant of bail when the accused
is prosecuted under the provisions of NDPS Act. At para­20
of the judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court pleased to note
that:­
“the High Court and this court are required to apply while
granting bail is whether there are reasonable grounds to
believe that the accused has not committed an offence and
whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Given the seriousness of offences punishable under the
NDPS Act and in order to curb the menace of drug­
trafficking in the country, stringent parameters for the
grant of bail under the NDPS Act have been prescribed. In
the present case, the High Court while granting bail to the
respondent adverted to two circumstances, namely (i)
absence of recovery of the contraband from the possession
of the respondent and (ii) the wrong name in the
endorsement of translation of the statement under Section
67 of the NDPS Act. As regards to the finding of Hon’ble
High
Court
regarding
absence
of
recovery
of
the
contraband from the possession of the respondent, we
note that in Union of India v. Rattan Mallik, a two­judge
Bench of this Court cancelled the bail of an accused and
reversed the finding of the High Court, which had held
8
that as the contraband (heroin) was recovered from a
specially made cavity above the cabin of a truck, no
contraband was found in the ‘possession’ of the accused.
The Court observed that merely making a finding on the
possession of the contraband did not fulfill the parameters
of Section 37(1)(b) and there was non­application of mind
by the High Court. In line with the decision of this Court in
Rattan Mallik (supra), we are of the view that a finding of
the absence of possession of the contraband on the person
of the respondent by the High Court in the impugned order
does not absolve it of the level of scrutiny required under
Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.”
Further in regard to non compliance of the procedure
laid U/s.42 of NDPS Act, it is held by the Hon’ble Apex
Court that it is a question of fact. Further, at Para­30 the
Hon’ble Apex Court pleased to make the following essential
elements ought to have been considered by the Hon’ble High
Court of Lucknow.
(i) The respondent was traveling in the vehicle all the
way from Dimapur in Nagaland to Rampur in Uttar
Pradesh with the co­accused;
(ii)
The complaint notes that the CDR analysis of the
mobile number used by the respondent indicates that
the respondent was in regular touch with the other
accused persons who were known to him;
(iii) The quantity of contraband found in the vehicle is of a
commercial quantity; and
9
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.11392/2022
(iv) The contraband was concealed in the vehicle in which
the respondent was traveling with the co­accused.

By making a detail observation in granting the bail to the
accused is incorrect and has set aside the impugned order.
The aforesaid recent judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court
clearly highlights on the aspect that what are all the
circumstances to be considered and has to be evaluated by
the court to consider the bail plea of the accused.
In the recent judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of State of Kerala Vs., Rajesh in (2020) 12 SCC 122
it is observed that
“reasonable grounds” means something more than
primafacie grounds. It contemplates substantial
probable causes for believing that the accused is not
guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief
contemplated in the provision requires existence of
such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in
themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is
not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case on hand,
the High Court seems to have completely overlooked
the underlying object of Section 37 that in addition to
the limitations provided under the CrPC, or any other
law for the time being in force, regulating the grant of
bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under
the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for.

10
Further in the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of State of MP Vs., Kajad reported in 2001 (7) SCC
673 has held that :
“5. ………….. Negation of bail is the rule and its grant an
exception under sub­clause (ii) of clause (b) of Section
37(1). For granting the bail the court must, on the basis of
the record produced before it, be satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not
guilty of the offences with which he is charged and further
that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It
has further to be noticed that the conditions for granting
the bail, specified in clause (b) of sub­section (1) of Section
37 are in addition to the limitations provided under the
Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time
being in force regulating the grant of bail. Liberal approach
in the matter of bail under the Act is uncalled for.”
In the dictum of Babua Vs., state of Orissa reported in
2001(2)SCC 566 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that:­
“3. In view of Section 37(1)(b) of the Act unless there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not
guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit
any offence while on bail alone will entitle him to a bail. In
the present case, the petitioner attempted to secure bail on
various grounds but failed. But those reasons would be
insignificant if we bear in mind the scope of Section 37(1)
(b) of the Act. At this stage of the case all that could be
seen is whether the statements made on behalf of the
prosecution witnesses, if believable, would result in
conviction of the petitioner or not. At this juncture, we
cannot say that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence if
the allegations made in the charge are established. Nor
can we say that the evidence having not been completely
adduced before the Court that there are no grounds to hold
that he is not guilty of such offence. The other aspect to be
borne in mind is that the liberty of a citizen has got to be
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.11392/2022
11
balanced with the interest of the society. In cases where
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances are involved,
the petitioner would indulge in activities which are lethal to
the society. Therefore, it would certainly be in the interest
of the society to keep such persons behind bars during the
pendency of the proceedings before the court, and the
validity of Section 37(1)(b) having been upheld, we cannot
take any other view.”
As per the enunciation of law in the afore said dictums it is
clear that no person shall be granted bail unless the two
conditions are satisfied, i.e., the satisfaction
of the court
that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
petitioner is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit
any offence while on bail.

Here in the present case the
petitioner was apprehended and 32 Kgs 284 grams of ganja
was seized from him.

The quantity of the contraband is
commercial quantity. At this stage, there are primafacie
materials available against the petitioner in regard to the
possession of narcotic drug. He has not made out addl.,
grounds to entertain his bail plea. In the result, I proceed to
hold that the petitioner herein has not made out any
grounds to entertain his plea for bail. Accordingly, I answer
point No.1 in the negative.
12. Point No.2:­
following:
In the result, I proceed to pass
12
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.439 of
Cr.P.C is hereby rejected.
[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 13th day of December, 2022)
B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.