BENGALURU – The XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS cases, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, has granted bail to 34-year-old Raghavendra, who was arrested in connection with a drug peddling case in Vijayanagar. The court’s decision was primarily based on the fact that the quantity of contraband seized was below the “commercial” threshold, thereby relaxing the stringent bail conditions typically associated with narcotic offences.

The petitioner, Raghavendra, a resident of Rajarajeshwari Nagar and native of Magadi Taluk, was arraigned as Accused No. 2 in Crime No. 3/2023. He had been in judicial custody following a police raid that resulted in the seizure of 1.4 kilograms of ganja.

Details of the Police Raid and Arrest

The criminal case was initiated following a report by the Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) of Vijayanagar Police Station. On January 13, 2023, the PSI received credible intelligence suggesting that a group of individuals would be arriving at Gandhi Maidana in Vijayanagar around noon to sell narcotic substances. After obtaining the necessary permissions from higher officers, a police team conducted a raid at the specified location.

During the operation, the police intercepted five individuals who had arrived in an auto-rickshaw. Upon surrounding and apprehending the suspects, the police conducted a search of a bag found in their possession. The search revealed the presence of ganja, which weighed 1.4 kilograms. Following the seizure and the recording of a spot mahazar, the accused were arrested and booked under Sections 8(c) and 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

Arguments for and against Bail

The counsel representing Raghavendra argued that the petitioner was entirely innocent and had no knowledge of the alleged crime. The defense contended that the petitioner had been “falsely implanted” in the case and that the mandatory procedural requirements under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which governs personal searches, had not been followed. Furthermore, it was argued that as the quantity of ganja seized was not a “commercial quantity,” the petitioner was entitled to bail. The defense also highlighted that Raghavendra is the sole breadwinner of his family and has no prior criminal record.

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail plea, characterizing the petitioner as a “habitual drug dealer.” The prosecution argued that the seizure of 1.4 kilograms of ganja from the group established a prima facie case. They expressed concerns that if released, the petitioner might abscond, tamper with witnesses, or continue to engage in the sale of narcotics, which carries a potential punishment of up to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

Judicial Analysis of Contraband Quantity

In its analysis, the court focused on the classification of the seized substance. According to the Ministry of Finance notification dated October 19, 2001, for ganja, 1,000 grams (1 kg) is considered a “small quantity,” while 20 kilograms is classified as a “commercial quantity.”

The court noted that the 1.4 kilograms seized in this case falls into the “intermediate quantity” category. This distinction is critical because the “rigors of Section 37” of the NDPS Act—which make bail extremely difficult to obtain—apply only to commercial quantities. When dealing with intermediate quantities, the court has the discretion to apply standard bail principles unless exceptional circumstances are proven by the prosecution.

The judge cited the Supreme Court precedent in Birbal Prasad vs. State of Bihar, where it was held that in cases involving non-commercial quantities where the accused has no prior record, the petitioner should generally be released on bail pending trial.

Conditions of the Bail Order

The court concluded that since the major portion of the investigation was complete and the incriminatory articles were already seized, further custodial interrogation was unnecessary. Consequently, the court ordered the release of Raghavendra on bail upon the execution of a personal bond for Rs 1,00,000 with two sureties of the same amount.

To ensure the integrity of the ongoing legal process, the court imposed several stringent conditions:

1. The petitioner must attend the office of the Investigating Officer once a month, specifically on the first Monday, until the charge sheet is filed.
2. He is prohibited from leaving the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
3. He must not tamper with witnesses or abscond from the legal process.
4. He must cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation.
5. He is strictly prohibited from committing any similar offences while on bail.
6. He must provide photo ID and local address proof for himself and his sureties.
7. He must attend all court hearing dates without fail.

The court warned that any breach of these conditions would result in the automatic cancellation of his bail. This ruling underscores the importance of the weight and classification of seized drugs in determining the liberty of the accused under the NDPS Act.