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 29 th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 Crl.Misc No.11421/2022 Petitioner: Shreyas Satish, S/o.G.S.Satish, a/a (Accused No.1) 34 years, R/at No.324, Ranka Court, Cambridge Layout, Bengaluru-560008. (By Sri.Siddharth Suman, Adv.) Vs. Respondent: Union of India, NCB, Bangalore Zonal Unit. (By Sri Spl. P.P.) O R D E R The petitioner/accused No.7 has filed this application U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge him on bail, in Cr.No.48/1/26/2022/BZU of NCB., registered for the offences punishable U/Sec. 20(B), 23,27A and 28 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. The petitioner had no knowledge of the drugs and about the incident. There is no evidence that the petitioner is involved in the case. Voluntary statement of the petitioner is recorded after the seizure. The present parcel was not booked by the present petitioner. Petitioner is no more connected to this case. Petitioner is either in possession or having the knowledge of the drug. The parcel is booked in the name of one Salem. He has been falsely implanted in the case. 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. Hence, sought to grant bail.

3. The objection raised by the prosecution is that the

investigating agency has seized 25 grams of ganja from the the parcel. The seizure was made before independent witnesses. The investigation is in progress. In the event of grant of bail, he CCH-33 Crl.Misc No.11421/2022 may abscond and may hamper the investigation. There is a primafacie case available against the petitioner. 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.

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:- A report submitted by IO., NCB.,

Bangalore who is the complainant in this case. The contents of the report is as here under:- On 14.11.2022 an information was received from a reliable source that a parcel bearing tracking ID No.UA931708261US is lying at Foreign Post Office, 5th Main, 4th cross, Chamarajpet, Bengaluru­560018 is suspected to be containing ganja. After receipt of the information the NCB., team reached the U Foreign Post Office, 5th Main, 4th cross, Chamarajpet, Bengaluru­560018 and after following the procedure 25 grams of ganja was seized from the parcel. The seizure panchanama was drawn on the spot on 14.11.2022. In the follow­up action on 18/11/2022 one person namely Shreyas Satish S/o.Satish Ganagan Srinivas Murthy, Flat No.324, Ranka Court Cambridge, Layout Halasuru­ 560008 delivered by the parcel through Postman of Gerard Leo Anthony­560008 after collecting the parcel bearing No. UA931708261US, NCB Official intercepted the said person and informed about the purpose of visit and he was summoned by the NCB officers and enquired and recorded his statement. On the basis of voluntary statement of the accused Shreyas Satish the material objects seized, accused was arrested on 19/11/2022 and was produced before the court along with the remand application. Thereafter, he has prepared a detail report which is the basis to register the case against the accused in Cr.No.48/1/26/2022/BZU for the offences punishable U/Sec.820(B), 23, 27A and 28 of N.D.P.S. Act. The present petitioner is accused No.1 in the case. CCH-33 Crl.Misc No.11421/2022

8. It is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that

the petitioner had no knowledge of the drugs and about the incident. There is no evidence that the petitioner is involved in the case. Voluntary statement of the petitioner is recorded after the seizure. The present parcel was not booked by present petitioner. Petitioner is no more connected to this case. Petitioner is either in possession or having the knowledge of the drug. The parcel is booked in the name of one Shreyas Satish. The drug is not in the baggage of the petitioner. He has been falsely implanted in the case. He is permanent resident of the address given in the cause title. The quantity of ganja seized in the case is small quantity. In the event of grant of bail he is ready to abide by the conditions which are being imposed by this court.

9. The prosecution opposed the bail plea on the ground

that there was seizure of 25 grams of ganja from the parcel from the conscious possession of accused No.1. The seizure was made before independent witnesses. The investigation is in progress. In the event of grant of bail he is going to abscond and may hamper investigation.

10. On careful analysis of rival contentions and the

prosecution papers available on record, the investigating agency seized 25 grams of ganja under the seizure panchanama. The petitioner is in judicial custody since the date of his arrest i.e., from 19.10.2022. On looking to the seizure panchanama the drugs seized is weighing 25 grams of ganja. 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 25 grams which is a small 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 small quantity and it is not commercial quantity. In the said circumstances, as CCH-33 Crl.Misc No.11421/2022 per the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court the bail plea of accused to be considered. What is the connecting link between the present petitioner and other accused no material produced at this stage.

11. Here in this case the drugs seized by the investigating

agency to the tune of 25 grams of ganja which is a small 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 petition under regular statues normal, unless the prosecution points towards exceptional circumstances. The major portion of investigation in the case is concluded as the incriminatory article is already seized. 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.

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. The petitioner is enlarged on bail on executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the like sum with following conditions.

1. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of this court without prior permission.

2. He shall not tamper the witness or abscond.

3. He shall not commit similar offence or any offence while on bail.

4. He shall furnish his photo ID proof and photo ID proof of his sureties.

5. 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 29th day of November 2022]. (B. S. JAYASHREE) XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE, (NDPS) : BENGALURU. CN/*