The XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS cases in Bengaluru has granted bail to Mohamad Rafic, arrayed as Accused No. 2, in a narcotics case involving the seizure of Ganja. The order, delivered by Judge Smt. B.S. Jayashree on November 18, 2022, emphasizes that the quantity of the contraband seized falls under the intermediate category, making the stringent bail restrictions of the NDPS Act inapplicable.
Background of the Police Raid at Iggaluru Village
The criminal proceedings were initiated following a suo motu action by the Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) of Surya Nagar Police Station on October 28, 2022. According to the prosecution, the police received credible information regarding two individuals selling Ganja near the BMTC depot in Iggaluru village, Vakkil Layout road, adjacent to a railway track and an Anjaneya Temple.
After obtaining the necessary permissions from the ACP and Dy.SP of the Anekal Sub-division, the police team conducted a raid. To confirm the illegal activity, the police utilized a decoy who signaled the team once the sale of Ganja was verified. The police then surrounded and apprehended two individuals identified as Santosh and the petitioner, Mohamad Rafic.
Allegations of Narcotic Distribution and Sourcing
During the interrogation at the spot, Accused No. 1 allegedly revealed that he and Mohamad Rafic had sourced the Ganja from a lady in Sulagiri, Tamil Nadu, where it was available at a lower price. They intended to sell the contraband in Bengaluru at a significant profit.
A personal search conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer led to the recovery of small packets of Ganja from the pant pockets of the accused. A total of 1 kilogram and 740 grams of Ganja was weighed and seized under a detailed mahazar. Following the seizure, a report was submitted to the Station House Officer (SHO), leading to the registration of Crime No. 314/2022 under Sections 20(B) and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
Legal Arguments and Judicial Reasoning
The counsel for Mohamad Rafic, Sri Venkatesh Reddy, argued that the petitioner was innocent and had been falsely implicated. He contended that the mandatory procedural requirements of Sections 41, 42, 50, and 52 of the NDPS Act were not followed by the investigating agency. Crucially, the defense pointed out that the quantity seized was not a “commercial quantity.”
In the ruling, the court focused on the classification of the seized substance. Under the Ministry of Finance notification dated October 19, 2001, the thresholds for Ganja are defined as follows:
- Small Quantity: Up to 1,000 grams (1 kg)
- Commercial Quantity: 20 kilograms or more
The court observed that 1 kilogram and 740 grams of Ganja constitutes an intermediate quantity. Judge B.S. Jayashree cited the Supreme Court decision in Birbal Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, noting that when the quantity involved is non-commercial, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act—which place a heavy burden on the accused to prove innocence for bail—are not attracted.
Terms and Conditions of the Release
The court concluded that since the incriminatory articles had already been seized and the petitioner’s voluntary statement recorded, further custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The court also noted that the petitioner has a permanent residence in Dakshina Kannada and is the sole breadwinner for his family.
The bail petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. was allowed, and Mohamad Rafic was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of the same amount, subject to the following conditions:
- The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer once a month (on the first Monday) until the charge sheet is filed.
- He is prohibited from leaving the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
- He must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or commit any further offences while on bail.
- He must provide valid photo ID and local address proof for himself and his sureties.
- He must attend all court hearing dates.
The court cautioned that any violation of these conditions would provide the investigating agency with grounds to seek the cancellation of his bail. This ruling underscores the judicial distinction between intermediate and commercial quantities of narcotics when determining the liberty of an accused.