Bengaluru, Karnataka – In a significant development for an ongoing narcotics case, the XXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (NDPS) in Bengaluru has granted bail to the petitioner, identified as Accused No. 2, Akilesh @ Akilesh Kumar Singh. The bail order, pronounced on March 20, 2024, came in response to a petition filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) concerning a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

The case, Crl.Misc.No.2395/2024, relates to Cr.No.178/2023 of Cottonpet Police Station, initially registered for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. This specific section typically deals with offences involving an intermediate quantity of contraband.

The Prosecution’s Allegations

The genesis of the case dates back to June 3, 2023, when the PSI of Cottonpet PS received credible information regarding an unknown person selling Ganja near S K Engineering work shop, TCM Roy Road, Cottonpet. The subsequent raid led to the apprehension of Accused No. 1 and the seizure of Ganja, which, upon weighing, totaled 3 kilograms. A case was registered against Accused No. 1, who was then remanded to judicial custody.

The present petitioner, Akilesh @ Akilesh Kumar Singh (Accused No. 2), a 21-year-old resident of Bihar, was apprehended later on August 8, 2023, after being shown as absconding in the case records. The primary evidence linking him to the crime is the voluntary statement of Accused No. 1, which alleged that Accused No. 2 had supplied the Ganja for further sale. Crucially, the prosecution records indicate that no contraband was recovered directly from the possession of Accused No. 2 at the time of his arrest.

Grounds for Seeking and Opposing Bail

Counsel for the petitioner argued that his client was innocent and had been falsely implicated. The key argument for bail was that the quantity of Ganja seized—3 Kgs—was not a commercial quantity, thereby not attracting the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner also affirmed his willingness to abide by any court-imposed conditions, including furnishing surety, and stated he is a permanent resident of the address provided, alleviating fears of him absconding.

The prosecution, represented by the Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the bail plea. They highlighted that 3 Kgs of Ganja was seized and that the offence carries a potential punishment of rigorous imprisonment for not less than 10 years, which may extend to 20 years. Their primary concerns were the potential for the petitioner to tamper with prosecution witnesses, involve himself in similar offences, and the societal harm caused by the distribution of drugs to the younger generation. They confirmed that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed.

Court’s Analysis and Decision on Intermediate Quantity

After hearing both sides and scrutinizing the case records, the Hon’ble Judge, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, proceeded to determine whether sufficient grounds existed to grant bail.

The court’s analysis centered on the quantity of Ganja seized and its classification under the NDPS Act. Referring to the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E) dated 19.10.2001 (Sl.No.55), the court established the following classifications for Ganja:

• Small Quantity: 1,000 grams (1 Kg)
• Commercial Quantity: 20 Kgs

Since the quantity seized was 3 Kgs, the court correctly classified it as an intermediate quantity.

This classification proved pivotal. The court noted that when the quantity is less than the commercial quantity, the rigorous conditions and restrictions on granting bail prescribed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not automatically attracted. In such cases, the bail factors become similar to those governing bail petitions under normal statutes.

The court further relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Birbal Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (2018 11 SCC 488), which held that an accused should be released on bail pending trial when the quantity involved is non-commercial. The court found this precedent aptly applied to the case at hand.

Conclusion and Bail Conditions

The court also considered that the petitioner was apprehended on August 8, 2023, and had been in judicial custody since then. Given that the investigation was concluded and the charge sheet was filed, the court determined that further custodial interrogation was unwarranted and his continued detention was not necessary. The apprehension of the prosecution regarding the petitioner absconding was deemed compensable through the imposition of stringent conditions.

In the final order, the court allowed the petition, granting bail to Akilesh @ Akilesh Kumar Singh on the condition of executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one surety for the like sum.

The following six stringent conditions were imposed on the petitioner:

1. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of this court without prior permission.
2. He shall not tamper with the witnesses or abscond.
3. He shall not commit similar offences or any offence while on bail.
4. He shall furnish his photo ID proof and local address proof document before the court and photo ID proof of his sureties.
5. He shall appear before the court on all hearing dates.
6. Breach of any of the conditions by the petitioner would entail the cancellation of bail.

The order was pronounced in Open Court on March 20, 2024, marking a significant legal distinction between cases involving intermediate and commercial quantities of narcotics under the NDPS Act. The case will now proceed to trial, with the accused facing proceedings from outside custody.