The XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to 20-year-old Uday R in connection with a drug possession case. The order, delivered on April 6, 2024, by Judge Sri. G. Raghavendra, highlights the legal distinction between small and commercial quantities under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and the resulting implications for an accused person’s liberty.
Uday R, a resident of Byatarayanapura, Mysore Road, filed the petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking protection from arrest by the Excise Department. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, noting that the quantity involved was significantly below the commercial threshold.
Details of the Excise Department Raid
The case originated from a raid conducted on September 13, 2023, by the Excise Inspector of the Bengaluru Urban District-3 DC Squad. According to the prosecution’s records, the authorities received credible information that Ganja was being sold to the public in front of Hotel Roti Park on Jnanabarathi Main Road.
Upon reaching the spot with independent witnesses (panchas), the Excise staff observed a person coming from Nagarabavi Circle. When the individual noticed the officials, he allegedly attempted to flee and threw a black plastic cover. The staff chased and apprehended the suspect, who was later identified as Uday R. Inside the discarded plastic cover, the officials found 200 grams of Ganja consisting of leaves, flowers, and seeds.
Following the seizure, the Excise Inspector registered a First Information Report (FIR) under Crime No. 25/2023-24 for offenses punishable under Section 8(c) and Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Legal Arguments: Small Quantity and Procedural Rights
Represented by his counsel, Uday R argued that he was absolutely innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. The defense contended that it was highly improbable for someone to be peddling drugs in such a busy area directly in front of a hotel and near a respondent station. Furthermore, the petitioner alleged that Excise officials were frequently visiting his workplace and residence, creating a genuine apprehension of arrest.
The court’s analysis centered on the classification of the seized substance. Under the central government notification SO 1055 (E), the thresholds for Ganja are clearly defined:
- Small Quantity: Up to 1,000 grams (1 kg).
- Commercial Quantity: 20 kilograms or more.
Since the recovered amount was 200 grams, it was classified as a “small quantity.” Under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the punishment for possessing a small quantity involves rigorous imprisonment for up to one year, a fine, or both.
Judicial Reasoning: Bail as the Rule for Small Quantities
Judge G. Raghavendra observed that while offenses under the NDPS Act are generally cognizable and non-bailable, the specific gravity of the offense dictates the trial process. Under Section 36A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, only offenses punishable with imprisonment of more than three years must be tried by a Special Court. For small quantities, where the punishment is less than three years, the case is triable by any Magistrate.
The court further noted that the Excise Inspector had already issued a notice under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is typically used when an arrest is not immediately necessary, but the person is required to join the investigation.
The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, suggesting that the accused might commit similar offenses or tamper with witnesses. However, the judge ruled that these concerns could be addressed through strict conditions rather than the denial of anticipatory bail.
Terms and Conditions of the Bail Order
The court allowed the petition and directed that in the event of an arrest, Uday R must be released on bail subject to the following conditions:
- Appearance: The petitioner must appear before the Investigation Officer within 15 days from the date of the order.
- Bond and Surety: Upon appearance, he shall be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 and one surety of the like sum.
- Witness Protection: The petitioner is strictly prohibited from threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses.
- Jurisdiction: The petitioner shall not leave the court’s jurisdiction without prior permission.
This order ensures that the 20-year-old petitioner can participate in the legal process without the immediate threat of incarceration, provided he adheres to the court’s guidelines.