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 27th DAY OF APRIL 2024
Crl.Misc.No.3049/2024
Petitioner :
(accused No.2)
Shahal P, S/o.Muneer PP, 24 years,
Near T K Igenesis, near Aiyappa
Temple, Kothanur, Bangalore.
Permanent resident of new quarters,
Athazhakunnu, Kottali PO, Kakkat,
Kannur, Kerala 670 005.
(By Sri AR., Adv.)
V/S.
Respondent :
State by Parappana Agrahara PS
(By Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
This is the bail petition U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C., filed by
the petitioner to enlarge him on bail, in Cr.No.57/2024 of
Parappana
Agrahara
PS.,
registered
for
the
punishable U/Sec.8(c), 21(c), 22(c) of NDPS Act.
2. The prevalent grounds urged seeking bail:
offence
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. There are no
reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has
committed
the
alleged
offences.
The
petitioner
is
a
permanent resident in the address as 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 152 grams of MDMA from
the accused.
The contraband seized is a commercial
quantity. There are sufficient materials available against the
petitioner and the said offences are punishable with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall extend to 10
years and shall also be liable to fine. The investigation is
3
CCH33
Crl.Misc.No.3049/2024
pending. In the event of his release he may tamper with the
prosecution witnesses.
from his custody.
Incriminatory articles were seized
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 learned counsel for the petitioner and the
prosecution.
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:
4
REASONS
7. POINT NO.1: The PSI, Parappana Agrahara P.S.,
Bangalore has put the criminal law into motion. The gist of
the allegation reads as here under:
On
26.1.2024
at
about
10.00
am.,
when
the
complainant PSI of Parappana Agrahara was in the Police
Station he has received credible information that at
Electronic City Phase 2, BMTC bus depot adjacent to fly
over pillar one person was selling MDMA crystal to the
public. On receipt of the information, he has informed the
matter to ACP obtained permission to conduct raid. He
along with the staff and panchas and investigation tools
went to the spot.
There the informant has shown the
suspect. He was apprehended and enquired. On enquiry
the said person has revealed his name and address. On
personal search of the accused No.1 they found 152 grams
of MDMA crystal is found and seized under a mahazar. A
detail report was prepared and submitted before the Station
House officer. Basing on the report a case in Cr.No.57/2024
is registered against the accused for the offences punishable
CCH33
Crl.Misc.No.3049/2024
5
U/s.8(c), 21(c) & 22(c) of NDPS Act. Thereafter, the accused
No.1 was produced to the court and remanded to J.C.
voluntary statement of accused No.1 was recorded . In
the voluntary statement he has revealed that his friend
Shahal had supplied MDMA contraband to him. Basing on
the voluntary statement of accused No.1, accused No.2 was
apprehended on 27.1.2024. In the voluntary statement
accused no.2 has stated that he had paid money to a
stranger through Google pay or phonepe, who would
in
turn inform accused No.3 about the place where he is going
to keep the contraband.
Accused No.3 after getting
information about the place where the contraband is kept
would inform accused No.2, accused No.2 had collected the
said contraband and handed it over to accused No.1.
basing on the statement of accused No,.2, coupled with the
statement of accused Nos.1 and 3, accused Nos.2 and 3
were arrested and commercial quantity of contraband seized
in this case which is to the tune of 152 grams of MDMA.
8.
On careful analysis of rival contentions and the
prosecution papers available on record, it is evident that on
26.1.2024
complainant
has
conducted
raid
and
6
apprehended accused No.1. On looking to the seizure
panchanama the drugs seized from accused No.1 is
weighing 152 grams of MDMA. The present petitioner has
made payment through online, googlepay to purchase the
said contraband and in turn had supplied it to accused
No.1. when accused No.1 was trying to sell MDMA he was
apprehended by the police and seizure is effected. 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.134 the narcotic drugMDMA 0.5
grams is small quantity and 10 grams is commercial
quantity. In this case the quantum of 152 grams of MDMA
seized is commercial quantity.
9. The NDPS Act provides deterrent punishment for
various offences relating to illicit trafficking in narcotic
drugs and psychotropic substances.
At this stage, it is
necessary for me to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of State of Kerala Vs., Rajesh in (2020)
12 SCC 122 it is observed that
CCH33
Crl.Misc.No.3049/2024
7
“reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie
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.
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
investigating agency has seized 152 grams of MDMA. The
quantity of contraband
seized is commercial quantity.
Investigation is pending. At this stage, there is primafacie
material available against the petitioner in regard to
purchase of contraband from an unknown person and
supplying the same to accused No.1 for further sale for
monetary gain. The bail petition filed by accused No.1 and
3 came to be rejected by this court.
Learned counsel for
petitioner has failed to place any material before this court
8
to show that present petitioner is not involved in procuring
contraband article. 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.
10. 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 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 27th day of April 2024)
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.