Bengaluru, September 12, 2023 – In a significant decision concerning the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Smt. B.S. Jayashree, granted bail to Dandapani Rana, a native of Odisha, who was accused of possessing $5$ kilograms and $500$ grams of Ganja. The order, delivered in Crl.Misc. No. 8493/2023, allowed the petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Cr. No. 484/2023 registered at Mahadevapura Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act.
The Allegations and Seizure
The case against the petitioner, Dandapani Rana, aged 35 years, originated from a complaint filed by the Sub-Inspector (PSI) of Mahadevapura Police Station. According to the prosecution’s report, on August 27, 2023, at approximately 1:30 PM, the complainant received credible information regarding an individual selling contraband near the Play Ground, Gangamma Thimmayya School, Shivanahalli, Bengaluru City.
The PSI immediately informed the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), secured permission for a raid, and proceeded to the spot with panchas (witnesses) and staff. They apprehended a person moving suspiciously and holding a bag. Upon enquiry, the person, identified as Dandapani Rana, admitted to carrying Ganja in the bag. The contraband was seized, weighed, and found to be $5$ Kgs., $500$ Grams of Ganja. A detailed mahazar (seizure memo) was drawn up, the accused was arrested, and subsequently remanded to judicial custody.
Petitioner’s Arguments for Release
The petitioner, represented by his counsel, Sri Nataraj D., argued for bail on the following grounds:
- Claim of Innocence: He asserted that he was innocent, a law-abiding citizen, and had been falsely implicated in the case.
- Contraband Classification: The key legal argument was that the seized quantity was not a commercial quantity, and therefore, the stringent conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act should not apply.
- Procedural Lapses: The petitioner alleged that the mandatory procedures contemplated under the NDPS Act for search and seizure were not followed.
- Personal Circumstances: He highlighted that he is a permanent resident of the address shown (Bradigoda Village, Lusingh Post, Kandamal District, Odisha) and was ready to comply with any conditions imposed by the court, including offering surety for his due appearance.
Prosecution’s Opposition and Severity of the Offence
The prosecution strongly opposed the bail petition, emphasizing the serious nature of the crime. They contended that $5$ Kgs., $500$ Grams of Ganja had been seized and that the offence is punishable with rigorous imprisonment ranging from a minimum of 10 years to a maximum of 20 years, along with a fine.
The Public Prosecutor argued that there was sufficient prima-facie material against the petitioner and expressed a strong apprehension that if released, the petitioner might tamper with prosecution witnesses or involve himself in similar offences, especially considering the accused’s alleged role in selling drugs to the “younger generation.”
Court’s Rationale: The Intermediate Quantity Factor
After carefully reviewing the arguments and the records, the court framed the central question as whether the petitioner had made out sufficient grounds for bail. The court’s affirmative finding hinged on a precise legal classification of the seized substance.
The judge referred to the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O. $1055$(E) dated October 19, 2001, which sets the standards for narcotic drug quantities:
- Small Quantity (Ganja): $1000$ grams ($1$ kilogram).
- Commercial Quantity (Ganja): $20$ kilograms.
The court definitively concluded that the seized quantum of $5$ Kgs., $500$ Grams of Ganja is an “intermediate quantity,” as it is more than the small quantity but significantly less than the commercial quantity.
Crucially, the court relied on the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Birbal Prasad vs. State of Bihar ($2018$ $11$ SCC $488$), where it was held that for a “non-commercial quantity” (a category into which intermediate quantity effectively falls for the purpose of Section 37), the accused should be released on bail pending trial, provided they are not involved in other cases.
“When the quantity is less than commercial quantity, rigors of Sec.37 of the NDPS Act will not attract, and factors become similar to bail petitions under regular statues normal, unless the prosecution points towards exceptional circumstances,” the judge stated.
The court also noted that the investigation had concluded, and the charge sheet had already been filed, rendering further custodial interrogation unnecessary. Given that the offence is not punishable with death or life imprisonment, and the petitioner’s permanent residence was established, the court decided that the prosecution’s apprehension of absconding or tampering could be mitigated by imposing strict conditions.
Bail Conditions Imposed
The court allowed the petition and ordered the enlargement of Dandapani Rana on bail. He is required to execute a personal bond for a sum of $\text{Rs. } 1,00,000/$ (One Lakh Rupees) with two sureties for the like sum. The bail is subject to the following eight conditions:
- The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Investigating Officer (I.O.) once a month, preferably on the first Monday of every month, between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM, until further orders.
- He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
- He shall not tamper with the witnesses or abscond.
- He shall cooperate with the I.O. for investigation.
- He shall not commit a similar offence or any offence while on bail.
- He shall furnish his photo ID proof and the photo ID proof of his sureties.
- He shall appear before the court on all dates of hearing.
- Breach of any of these conditions would automatically lead to the cancellation of bail.