In a significant ruling that underscores the principles of bail jurisprudence, the XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, (NDPS), Bengaluru (CCH–35), granted bail to Akram Pasha (Accused No. 1) in the case arising from Crime No. 255/2023 of the Puttenahalli Police Station. The order, passed on August 23, 2023, by Sri. G. Raghavendra, the presiding Special Judge, allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Crl.Misc. No. 7968/2023) filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).
The petitioner, Akram Pasha, aged 51, was booked for offences punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), which relates to the production, possession, sale, purchase, transport, or use of cannabis. The specific sub-section, Section 20(b)(ii)(B), under which the charge falls, deals with offences involving a quantity greater than a small quantity but less than a commercial quantity, and carries a punishment of rigorous imprisonment which may extend up to 10 years.
The Allegations and Seizure
According to the prosecution’s report, the case was initiated based on information received on August 12, 2023. Head Constable Pradeep (H.C 11195) of Puttenahalli Police Station, while gathering intelligence about Ganja sellers, was informed by an accused from a separate NDPS case that he and others purchased Ganja from Akram Pasha. The informant stated that Mr. Pasha was expected to arrive at a vacant ground near the BMTC Depot, Kottanuru Dinne, J.P. Nagar 8th Stage, around 1:00 p.m. on the same day, allegedly carrying 2 to 3 kilograms of Ganja for sale.
Following this tip-off, a formal complaint was lodged, and the Police Sub-Inspector (PSI), Sri. Udaya Nandan G.S., registered the First Information Report (FIR) under Crime No. 255/2023. After obtaining necessary permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Subramanyapura Sub-Division, the PSI conducted a raid.
The raid led to the detention of Akram Pasha at the specified location. The police team, along with panchas (independent witnesses), subsequently seized a total of 2 kilograms and 302 grams of Ganja. This quantity was reportedly found in two forms: 244 grams distributed across 15 zip-lock covers, and 2 kg 58 grams kept in the dickey of his bike, bearing registration No. KA-03/KQ-3255. The total quantity was seized under a mahazar (seizure memo). Following the seizure, the accused allegedly provided a voluntary statement admitting to purchasing the Ganja from an acquaintance in Shidlaghatta, near Devanahalli.
Judicial Scrutiny and the Role of Quantity
A critical element of the court’s deliberation was the quantity of the seized contraband. The court noted the specifications of small and commercial quantities of Ganja as laid out in the Central Government’s SO 1055 (E) dated October 19, 2021, as amended.
- Small Quantity (Ganja): 1000 grams (1 kg)
- Commercial Quantity (Ganja): 20 kilograms (20 kg)
The quantity recovered from Akram Pasha was 2 kg 302 grams, which clearly falls between the small and commercial thresholds. This intermediate quantity proved crucial in applying the law related to bail.
The Mandate of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
Bail in cases under the NDPS Act is notoriously stringent, primarily due to the limitations imposed by Section 37, which makes NDPS offences cognizable and non-bailable. However, the rigor of Section 37(1)(b) applies specifically to offences punishable under Section 19, Section 24, or Section 27A, and offences involving a commercial quantity.
For offences involving a commercial quantity, the court must be satisfied of two stringent conditions before granting bail:
- There are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty of such an offence.
- The accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Since the seized quantity of 2.302 kg was less than the commercial quantity (20 kg), the stringent double-conditions of Section 37(1)(b) did not apply to Akram Pasha’s petition.
Consequently, the court found that the general principles for granting bail in non-bailable offences, as stipulated under Section 437(1)(i) and (ii) and Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C., were applicable. The court also considered the petitioner’s grounds for bail, which included the absence of eye-witnesses to the actual physical possession of the drug and the non-applicability of the commercial quantity provisions.
Court’s Conclusion and Conditions
The Public Prosecutor had raised objections, contending that the accused might commit similar offences, tamper with evidence, or abscond. However, the court, after examining the facts and the applicable law, determined that these concerns could be adequately addressed by imposing suitable conditions.
Answering Point No. 1 (Whether the petitioner satisfies that there are reasonable grounds for believing he is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail) in the affirmative, the court ordered the release of Akram Pasha.
The bail was granted upon the execution of a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand), along with one surety for the like sum. The order further stipulated several mandatory conditions to ensure the accused’s cooperation and prevent potential misuse of the freedom:
- The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
- The petitioner shall cooperate with the Investigation Officer (I.O) for investigation.
- The petitioner shall regularly appear before the court.
- The petitioner shall not commit any offences similar to the offence of which he is accused or any other offences.
- Breach of any of the conditions would entail cancellation of bail.
This judgment highlights the nuanced application of the NDPS Act, emphasizing that the quantity of the contraband is a primary determinant of the gravity of the offence and the applicability of the Act’s most restrictive bail provisions. For offences involving intermediate quantities, the ordinary judicial discretion concerning bail, guided by the Cr.P.C., remains the operative legal framework.