A Special NDPS Court in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to 36-year-old Infant Suresh in connection with a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The order, delivered by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS, comes amid a complex backdrop of personal rivalry and multiple legal disputes between the accused and the complainant.
The petitioner, Infant Suresh, a resident of MICO Layout in Hongasandra, approached the court seeking protection from arrest in Crime No. 272/2017 (later referred to as 272/2022 in the context of the proceedings) registered by the Amruthahalli Police Station. The charges against him included Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, following a strange incident involving a small quantity of ganja and a weapon.
The prosecution’s case was built on a complaint filed by Smt. Shashireka M, who alleged a series of dramatic events. According to the complainant, a woman named Supritha, who was allegedly associated with Infant Suresh, visited her house claiming to have escaped from Suresh’s illegal detention. The complainant alleged that upon checking Supritha’s bag, she discovered two packets of ganja weighing approximately 100 grams and a dragon knife. The complainant expressed fear that Suresh and Supritha had conspired to plant these illegal items in her house to falsely implicate her in a criminal case.
Infant Suresh, represented by his counsel, argued that he was a victim of a targeted smear campaign. The defense highlighted that the petitioner and the complainant shared a history of legal friction. Specifically, it was pointed out that Suresh had previously filed a Private Complaint (PCR) against the complainant for cheating and fraud involving a sum of over Rs. 14 lakh. Furthermore, the complainant had recently filed a separate FIR against Suresh alleging sexual assault, a case in which Suresh had already been granted anticipatory bail by another court. The defense contended that the current drug-related charges were merely an extension of these ongoing personal vendettas.
In evaluating the bail plea, the court scrutinized the nature of the contraband seized. Under Indian law, the severity of NDPS cases is often determined by the quantity of the drug involved. The court noted that the 100 grams of ganja seized is classified as a small quantity. According to the Ministry of Finance notification, any amount under 1,000 grams of ganja falls within the “small quantity” bracket, which carries significantly lighter penalties than “commercial quantities.”
The judge observed that the stringent rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which makes it difficult for accused persons to obtain bail in drug cases, do not apply when the quantity is non-commercial. Referencing Supreme Court precedents, the court noted that when dealing with small quantities, the standard principles of bail apply unless the prosecution can prove exceptional circumstances or a risk of the accused absconding.
The court further noted several discrepancies in the prosecution’s narrative. It was observed that Infant Suresh was not present at the scene when the ganja was allegedly found. There was also no immediate evidence produced to show that Suresh had supplied the contraband to the first accused, Supritha. The judge remarked that the previous rivalry and the flurry of cross-complaints between the parties suggested a strong possibility of false implantation.
Given that the offense is not punishable with death or life imprisonment, and considering the petitioner’s status as a permanent resident of Bengaluru, the court concluded that custodial interrogation was not necessary. The judge stated that the interests of the investigation could be protected by imposing strict conditions rather than through incarceration.
The court ordered that in the event of his arrest, Infant Suresh shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety for a like sum. The court imposed several conditions to ensure a fair investigation: the petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer within one month, he must not threaten or tamper with prosecution witnesses, he must cooperate fully with the investigation, and he is prohibited from leaving the court’s jurisdiction without prior permission. This ruling provides a temporary reprieve for the accused while the Amruthahalli police continue their probe into the alleged conspiracy.