The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) in Bengaluru has granted bail to 47-year-old Naresh Behra, the primary accused in a drug peddling case. The court, presided over by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), observed that the quantity of narcotics seized was not “commercial,” thereby allowing for the relaxation of the strict bail conditions typically seen under the NDPS Act.

The petitioner, Naresh Behra, a resident of Junnasandra near Sarjapura, was arrested by the Beguru Police in June 2022. The prosecution had charged him under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act after a police raid led to the discovery of cannabis (ganja).

Background of the Beguru Police Raid

The case originated on June 17, 2022, when the Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) of Beguru Police Station received credible intelligence regarding the sale of illegal drugs. The information suggested that an unknown person was selling ganja in a vacant space near site No. 95 in the AECS Layout, Chikkabeguru area.

Following the receipt of this information, the police registered a suo-moto case and obtained permission from higher officials to conduct a raid. Upon arriving at the spot, the police identified Naresh Behra as the suspected individual. A personal search of the accused led to the recovery of 1 kilogram and 190 grams of ganja.

During the subsequent interrogation, the petitioner allegedly revealed that he had sourced the narcotics from individuals in Odisha, identified as Akshay Bindani and Tapan Kumar. He also confessed to selling the contraband to the general public in Bengaluru. Based on his voluntary statement, the police later apprehended two more individuals, Accused Nos. 2 and 3, on June 21, 2022, seizing an additional 3 kilograms and 530 grams of ganja from their possession. In total, the investigation linked 4 kilograms and 720 grams of ganja to the group.

Arguments Presented by the Defense and Prosecution

Counsel for the petitioner, Sri STN, argued that Naresh Behra was a law-abiding citizen with no previous criminal record. The defense contended that the petitioner was innocent and had been falsely implicated at the instance of extraneous elements. A key point of the defense was the alleged non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which governs the conditions for personal search.

Furthermore, the defense highlighted that the seized quantity was well below the “commercial quantity” threshold. They argued that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner for his family and was ready to provide sureties and abide by any conditions imposed by the court to prove his cooperation.

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail plea, characterizing the accused as a habitual drug dealer. The prosecution argued that the total seizure of 4.720 kilograms was significant and that the accused posed a flight risk. They contended that if released on bail, Behra might abscond or hamper the ongoing investigation, given the serious nature of the offense which carries a potential punishment of up to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The Court’s Legal Reasoning and Decision

In evaluating the case, Judge B.S. Jayashree focused on the classification of the seized substance under the NDPS Act. According to the Ministry of Finance notification dated October 19, 2001, for ganja, 1,000 grams is considered a “small quantity,” while 20 kilograms is considered a “commercial quantity.”

The court noted that the 4.720 kilograms involved in this case falls under the “intermediate quantity.” This distinction is critical because the stringent rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act—which make it exceptionally difficult to get bail—apply primarily to commercial quantities.

The judge cited the Supreme Court precedent in Birbal Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (2018), where it was held that in cases involving non-commercial quantities where the accused is not involved in other crimes, bail should be considered during the pending trial.

The court further observed that the major portion of the investigation was concluded since the contraband was already seized and the petitioner’s voluntary statement was recorded. “The apprehension of the prosecution that he may abscond and may protract the trial could be compensated by imposing stringent conditions,” the order stated.

Conditions for the Grant of Bail

While allowing the petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., the court imposed several conditions to ensure the petitioner’s appearance and prevent tampering with evidence:

1. The petitioner must execute a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties for a like sum.
2. He must appear before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) once a month, preferably on the first Monday, until the charge sheet is filed.
3. He is prohibited from leaving the court’s jurisdiction without prior permission.
4. He must not tamper with witnesses or commit any similar offenses while on bail.
5. He must provide photo ID and local address proof for himself and his sureties.
6. Failure to appear on hearing dates or breach of any conditions will lead to the cancellation of bail.

This ruling underscores the judicial balance between the severity of drug-related offenses and the legal rights of an accused when the evidence does not meet the high-threshold “commercial” classification.