BENGALURU – In a significant ruling concerning the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS cases, Bengaluru, has granted bail to Jagadish, the first accused in a drug trafficking case. The decision, delivered by Hon’ble Judge Smt. B.S. Jayashree on December 9, 2022, centered on the legal distinction between intermediate and commercial quantities of contraband.

The petitioner, Jagadish, a 39-year-old resident of Shanthinagar, Bengaluru, had been in judicial custody following his arrest by the RMC Yard Police. The prosecution alleged that the accused was involved in the possession and sale of ganja, an offense punishable under Section 20(B)(c) of the NDPS Act.

The case began on September 18, 2022, when police received a tip-off regarding two individuals selling ganja near Govardhan Talkies on Tumkur Road. Acting on this information, the police conducted a raid and apprehended Jagadish and another individual. During the initial search, police reportedly seized 2 kilograms and 100 grams of ganja from the duo. Subsequent investigations and voluntary statements led the police to a residence in Neelasandra, where an additional 20 kilograms and 150 grams of ganja were allegedly recovered, bringing the total seizure in the case to over 23 kilograms.

During the bail hearing, counsel for the petitioner, Sri Charles E, argued that Jagadish was innocent and had been falsely implicated. The defense emphasized that the mandatory procedural requirements under Sections 41, 42, 50, and 52 of the NDPS Act were not strictly followed during the recovery process. Most importantly, the defense contended that the quantity specifically seized from the petitioner’s person did not meet the threshold for “commercial quantity,” thereby making him eligible for bail.

The prosecution strongly opposed the application, highlighting the gravity of the offense. The Public Prosecutor argued that the total amount of ganja seized was 23 kilograms and 300 grams, which exceeds the 20-kilogram threshold defined as a “commercial quantity” under the law. The prosecution raised concerns that if released, the accused might tamper with witnesses, abscond, or continue to sell drugs to the younger generation, potentially ruining lives.

In her detailed analysis, Judge B.S. Jayashree examined the seizure panchanama and the specific role of the petitioner. The court noted that the initial seizure from the petitioner was 2.1 kilograms. While the prosecution pointed to a larger total recovery, the court focused on the specific quantity linked to the immediate apprehension of the petitioner.

Under the NDPS Act, the classification of the quantity of the drug is vital in determining bail eligibility. For ganja, up to 1 kilogram is considered “small quantity,” while 20 kilograms and above is “commercial quantity.” Anything in between is classified as “intermediate quantity.”

The court cited the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in Birbal Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (2018), noting that when a non-commercial quantity is involved, and the accused does not have a prior criminal record, bail should be considered favorably pending trial. The judge observed that for intermediate quantities, the stringent rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act—which makes bail extremely difficult for commercial quantities—do not strictly apply.

The court further noted that the major portion of the investigation was concluded since the incriminatory articles had already been seized. As the offense is not punishable by death or life imprisonment and the petitioner provided a permanent local address, the court concluded that continued custodial interrogation was not warranted.

The petition was allowed subject to several stringent conditions. Jagadish was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of the same amount. He must mark his attendance at the police station once a month and is prohibited from leaving the court’s jurisdiction without prior permission. The court also warned that any breach of these conditions, including tampering with witnesses or committing similar offenses while on bail, would lead to the immediate cancellation of his liberty.