The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to a 35-year-old resident of J.J. Nagar, identified as Sadiq, also known by the aliases Mota Nalda Sadiq and Phatta Nalda Sadiq. The order, passed by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS, provides the petitioner protection from arrest in connection with a 2020 drug peddling case.
The petitioner had approached the court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking an order of anticipatory bail after the J.J. Nagar police named him as Accused No. 2 in Crime Number 178/2020. The case involves allegations under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which pertains to the punishment for contravention in relation to the cannabis plant and cannabis.
Background of the J.J. Nagar Police Investigation
The legal proceedings originated from a police operation conducted on September 5, 2020. According to the prosecution’s report submitted by the Police Sub-Inspector of J.J. Nagar, a raid was carried out near a Muslim burial ground in Padarayanapura following credible information regarding the sale of narcotics.
During the raid, the police apprehended Accused No. 1, who was allegedly found in possession of 1 kilogram and 58 grams of ganja. Upon interrogation, the first accused reportedly revealed that he had purchased the contraband from the petitioner, Sadiq. While the police filed a charge sheet against Accused No. 1, Sadiq was listed as “absconding,” leading the police to frequently visit his residence.
Arguments for Anticipatory Bail
Counsel for the petitioner, Sri E.N., argued that Sadiq is a law-abiding citizen who has been falsely implicated in the crime. The defense emphasized that no drugs were recovered directly from Sadiq’s possession and that his name surfaced only through the self-serving statement of the first accused.
Furthermore, the defense highlighted that the quantity of ganja seized from the first accused—just over one kilogram—is classified as an “intermediate quantity” under the law. They contended that since the investigation against the primary suspect was already concluded and the charge sheet filed, there was no necessity for Sadiq’s custodial interrogation. The petitioner also affirmed that he is the sole breadwinner for his family and has no prior criminal record.
Prosecution Opposes Relief Citing Habitual Activity
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail plea, labeling the petitioner a “habitual drug dealer.” The prosecution argued that there was a prima facie case against Sadiq and that granting him bail would allow him to abscond further or tamper with the ongoing legal process. Under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the prosecution reminded the court that the offences alleged could lead to rigorous imprisonment for up to 10 years.
Court Analysis of Narcotic Quantity and Legal Standards
In its reasoning, the court examined the specific weight of the seized narcotics. According to the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E), for ganja, a weight of 1,000 grams is considered a “small quantity,” while 20 kilograms constitutes a “commercial quantity.”
The court noted that the 1 kilogram and 58 grams involved in this case falls squarely into the “intermediate” category. Critically, the judge observed that the investigating agency failed to produce substantial material evidence at this stage to link the petitioner directly to large-scale drug trafficking, beyond the verbal statement of the co-accused.
The judge remarked that because the incriminatory articles had already been seized from Accused No. 1 and the petitioner had no previous criminal antecedents, custodial interrogation was not warranted.
Conditions of the Court Order
Allowing the petition, the court directed the J.J. Nagar police to release Sadiq on bail in the event of his arrest, subject to the execution of a personal bond of 1,00,000 rupees and two sureties of the like sum. To ensure his cooperation with the law, the following conditions were imposed:
- Investigation Cooperation: The petitioner must mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer every first Sunday of the month until the filing of the supplementary charge sheet.
- Non-Interference: He is strictly prohibited from making any inducement, threat, or promise to witnesses or anyone acquainted with the facts of the case.
- Jurisdictional Restraint: The petitioner cannot leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission and must attend all hearing dates without fail.
- Prevention of Recidivism: He is barred from committing any similar offences while out on bail.
- Identity Verification: He must furnish photo identity proof for himself and his sureties to the court.
The court warned that any breach of these conditions would lead to the immediate cancellation of the bail. This ruling underscores the judicial principle of balancing individual liberty with the state’s interest in investigating crime, particularly when the quantity of contraband does not meet the “commercial” threshold.