BENGALURU: The XXXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS) at Bengaluru, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, has granted anticipatory bail to G. Manoj, who was named as Accused No. 1 in a case involving the seizure of $1$ kilogram and $250$ grams of Ganja. The court’s decision was significantly influenced by the fact that the seized quantity was classified as ‘intermediate’ and not ‘commercial,’ thereby overriding the strict limitations usually imposed by the NDPS Act.
The order, dated December 22, 2022, in Crl.Misc.No.12440/2022, directs the Avalahalli Police Station to release G. Manoj, aged 26, on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.329/2022, which was registered for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act.
Allegations and Incident Details
The criminal case was initiated based on a report submitted by the Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) of Avalahalli Police Station. The report detailed an incident that occurred on August 24, 2022. At approximately 4:00 pm, the PI received credible information that two individuals were traveling from KR Puram to Medahalli on a two-wheeler while carrying Ganja.
Acting swiftly, the PI noted the information in the station house diary, informed the ACP, and proceeded to the spot near Medahalli, Karnashree layout, along with staff and panchas (independent witnesses). At around 5:00 pm, a motorbike bearing No. KA 53 EK 9731 arrived. When the vehicle was intercepted and stopped, the rider (Accused No. 2) was apprehended, but the pillion rider—allegedly the petitioner, G. Manoj (Accused No. 1)—managed to flee the scene.
The subsequent search, conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer (Dy.SP) who was called to the spot, led to the seizure of $1250$ grams ($1$ Kg $250$ grams) of Ganja from the possession of the arrested rider (Accused No. 2). Following the seizure and registration of the FIR, Accused No. 2 was remanded to judicial custody, while the present petitioner, G. Manoj, was shown as having absconded.
Petitioner’s Plea and Prosecution’s Objections
G. Manoj, through his counsel Sri Narayanaswamy, sought anticipatory bail, arguing his innocence and claiming he was falsely implicated. The defence emphasized that the incriminatory article had already been seized from the co-accused (Accused No. 2), the investigation was essentially complete regarding recovery, and the seized quantity was not a commercial quantity. G. Manoj also asserted that he had “deep roots in the society” and was willing to comply with all conditions.
The prosecution opposed the petition, stressing the gravity of the offence, which carries a punishment of rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years. They alleged that the petitioner was a “habitual drug dealer” and that his release, particularly after absconding from the spot, could lead to him tampering with the investigation or committing further offences.
Judicial Analysis on Bail Under NDPS Act
The core of the court’s reasoning focused on the classification of the seized Ganja, a crucial factor in NDPS cases. The court referred to the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E) dated 19.10.2001 (Sl.No.55), which establishes the thresholds:
- Small Quantity of Ganja: $1000$ grams ($1$ Kg)
- Commercial Quantity of Ganja: $20$ Kgs
Since the seized quantity was $1$ Kg and $250$ grams, the Judge concluded that the quantity falls into the “intermediate quantity” category.
The court noted that because the seized contraband was only of an intermediary quantity, the stringent restrictions on bail mandated by Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted. Therefore, the court was entitled to consider the bail plea on the normal principles applicable under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Judge further observed that:
- Recovery is Complete: The incriminatory article had already been seized from Accused No. 2, meaning further custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not warranted.
- Non-Absolving Nature: The offence alleged is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
- Mitigating Risk: The prosecution’s fear that the petitioner might abscond or protract the trial could be adequately mitigated by imposing stringent conditions, especially since the petitioner provided his permanent residential address.
Based on these findings, the court held that the petitioner had made out sufficient grounds to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Conditions for Release
The court allowed the petition and directed the Avalahalli Police to release G. Manoj on bail in the event of his arrest, subject to him executing a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with two sureties for the like sum.
The release is subject to the following stringent conditions:
- Non-Tampering: The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
- Monthly Attendance: He shall mark his attendance before the concerned Investigating Officer (I.O.) on every first Sunday of the month between 10:00 am and 5:00 pm, until the filing of the charge sheet or further orders.
- Court Attendance: He shall attend before the Court on all dates of hearing without fail and shall not leave the court’s jurisdiction till the conclusion of the trial without prior permission.
- No Repeat Offences: He shall not commit a similar offence or any offence while on bail.
- Documentation: He shall furnish his photo ID proof and the photo identity proof of his sureties.
Breach of any of these conditions was explicitly warned to entail the cancellation of bail.