A Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) in Bengaluru has granted bail to Chandrashekar A, who was arrested in connection with the seizure of Hashish Oil and Ganja, after ruling that the seized quantities amounted to an ‘intermediate quantity’ and thus did not attract the rigorous restrictions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The order was passed on August 3, 2022, by the XXXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (NDPS), Smt. B.S. Jayashree, allowing the bail petition filed by the accused, designated as Accused No. 3 (A3) in the case.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Chandrashekar A, aged about 27 years, sought regular bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in Cr. No. 140/2022 registered by the Magadi Road Police Station. The charges against him and his co-accused are under Sections 8(c), 20(ii)(B), and 21(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985. These sections pertain to the illegal possession and sale of narcotic drugs.
The case was initiated based on a report from a Police Inspector (PI) of the CCB (W & N), Bengaluru. On July 15, 2022, the PI received information about illicit storage of contraband at the house of Accused No. 1 in Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. A raid was conducted the following day after obtaining permission from the ACP (CCB). The complainant alleges that upon searching the house, the police found and seized 940 grams of Hashish Oil and 10 kgs of Ganja. The petitioner, Chandrashekar A (A3), along with A1 and A2, was present at the house, arrested, and subsequently remanded to judicial custody.
Arguments Presented to the Court
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Chandrashekar was innocent, falsely implicated, and a stranger to the crime, alleging that the entire complaint was a concocted story. The defense heavily relied on the argument that the mandatory procedural provisions of the NDPS Act, such as Sections 42 (recording of information), 50 (personal search), 52, 55, and 57, were not properly complied with by the investigating agency. Furthermore, the defense contended that the seized quantity was not a commercial quantity. The petitioner, described as a law-abiding citizen with no bad antecedents and a permanent resident of the given address, offered to abide by any stringent conditions imposed by the court.
The prosecution, represented by the Public Prosecutor, strongly opposed the bail application. They contended that a detailed mahazar (seizure report) was drawn and there was a prima facie case against the petitioner. They argued that the offence was serious, punishable with imprisonment extending up to 20 years, and that the petitioner was a “habitual drug dealer.” Granting bail, they submitted, would lead to the accused absconding or hampering the ongoing investigation.
Judicial Analysis on Quantum of Seizure
The court’s decision hinged on the classification of the seized narcotics under the NDPS Act’s schedule of quantities. The seized articles were:
- Hashish Oil: 940 grams.
- Ganja: 10 kgs.
The court referred to the Ministry of Finance Notification S.O. 1055(E) dated October 19, 2001, which defines small and commercial quantities:
- Hashish/Charas (Sl. No. 23): Small Quantity is 100 grams, and Commercial Quantity is 1 Kg (1000 grams).
- Ganja (Sl. No. 55): Small Quantity is 1000 grams (1 Kg), and Commercial Quantity is 20 Kgs.
The seized quantity of Hashish Oil (940 grams) is clearly less than the Commercial Quantity of 1 Kg (1000 grams). Similarly, the seized quantity of Ganja (10 kgs) is less than the Commercial Quantity of 20 Kgs.
The court thus concluded: “In this case the quantum of Hashish Oil seized is 940 grams and ganja seized is 10 kgs of which is an intermediate quantity.”
Applicability of Section 37 and Precedents
Crucially, the court noted that since the seized quantity was deemed ‘intermediate’ and not ‘commercial,’ the stringent provisions and rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act—which restrict the grant of bail unless the court is satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail—do not apply.
In support of its finding, the court cited the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in Birbal Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (2018 11 SCC 488), where the Supreme Court held that bail should be granted for a non-commercial quantity (14 Kgs of Ganja in that case) if the accused is not involved in any other case. The court observed that the present case was similar, allowing the bail plea to be considered under normal statutory provisions.
Furthermore, the court took into account that the accused was in judicial custody since his arrest on July 16, 2022, the major portion of the investigation was concluded, and co-accused Nos. 1 and 2 had already been granted bail by the same court on August 1, 2022. The court found that further custodial interrogation was not warranted.
Bail Conditions
The court allowed the petition, granting bail to Chandrashekar A upon executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum. The bail is subject to standard and specific stringent conditions:
- The petitioner must attend before the concerned Investigating Officer once a month, on the first Monday of every month, between 10:00 am and 2:00 pm, until the charge sheet is filed.
- He is prohibited from leaving the court’s jurisdiction without prior permission.
- He shall not tamper with witnesses or abscond.
- He must cooperate with the I.O. for investigation and shall not commit any similar or other offense while on bail.
The court explicitly warned that any breach of these conditions would automatically entail the cancellation of bail. This judgment provides an important precedent on the judicial distinction between intermediate and commercial quantities in NDPS cases in the state.