Bengaluru Court Grants Bail to Kalakanuha Phanigrahi in 8 Kg Ganja Seizure Case

The Special NDPS Court in Bengaluru has granted bail to 32-year-old Kalakanuha Phanigrahi, an accused arrested for allegedly possessing over eight kilograms of ganja. The order, delivered by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS, emphasized that the quantity of the seized narcotic was below the “commercial” threshold, making the stringent bail restrictions of the NDPS Act inapplicable.

The petitioner, a resident of Bhuvaneshwar in Orissa State, had been in judicial custody following his arrest by the Bangalore Rural Railway Police at the Yelahanka Railway Station. The prosecution alleged that on November 29, 2022, railway police officials on duty at Platform No. 1 observed two suspicious individuals in a general compartment of a train. While one individual managed to flee the scene, Phanigrahi was apprehended. Upon inspection, police claimed to have found ganja rolled in khaki tape within bags in his possession, totaling 8.525 kilograms.

During the proceedings, the counsel representing Phanigrahi argued that the accused was innocent and had been falsely implicated at the behest of extraneous elements. The defense contended that the mandatory procedures for search and seizure under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act were not strictly followed by the apprehending officers. Furthermore, the defense highlighted that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner for his family and posed no risk of fleeing, given his permanent residence in Orissa.

The Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail plea, characterizing Phanigrahi as a habitual drug dealer. The state argued that the seizure of 8.525 kilograms of ganja constituted a serious offense punishable by up to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution expressed concerns that if released, the accused might abscond or attempt to tamper with the investigation, which was still in its active stages.

In her detailed analysis, Judge B.S. Jayashree referred to the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification regarding drug quantities. Under the current legal framework, 1,000 grams of ganja is considered a “small quantity,” while 20 kilograms or more is categorized as a “commercial quantity.” The court noted that the 8.525 kilograms seized in this case falls into the “intermediate quantity” category.

This distinction is legally significant because Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes extremely high hurdles for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities. However, for intermediate quantities, the court observed that the rigors of Section 37 do not apply. In such instances, the factors for granting bail become similar to those under regular criminal statutes, unless the prosecution can demonstrate exceptional circumstances.

The court cited a landmark Supreme Court decision, Birbal Prasad vs. State of Bihar (2018), where the apex court granted bail to an accused found with 14 kilograms of ganja, noting it as a non-commercial quantity. Applying this logic to the present case, Judge Jayashree determined that Phanigrahi was entitled to bail as the investigation’s major requirements, such as the seizure of the contraband and the recording of voluntary statements, had already been completed.

The court concluded that custodial interrogation was no longer warranted. To address the prosecution’s fears regarding the accused absconding, the judge imposed a set of stringent conditions.

Kalakanuha Phanigrahi was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of the same amount. The conditions of his release include a mandatory appearance before the Investigating Officer on the first Monday of every month until the charge sheet is filed. Additionally, he is prohibited from leaving the court’s jurisdiction without prior permission, tampering with witnesses, or committing any further offenses while on bail. The court also required the submission of photo ID and local address proof for both the petitioner and his sureties to ensure accountability.