In a notable judicial order passed on November 30, 2022, the XXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, LL.M., allowed the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 11357/2022. The court enlarged Seme Rehema Watson alias Watson (Accused No. 1) on regular bail in connection with Crime No. 354/2022 registered by the Pulakeshinagar Police Station. The petitioner was facing prosecution for offences punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

Prosecution Allegations and Procedural History

The criminal law was set into motion based on a report submitted by the Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) of Pulakeshinagar Police Station. According to the prosecution case, on November 8, 2022, at approximately 5:00 PM, the complainant PSI received credible information indicating that a woman was selling ganja to customers near Pottery Circle, adjacent to an animal shelter home and a public toilet in Bengaluru.

Upon receiving the information, the PSI recorded the details, notified superior officers, and obtained permission to conduct a raid. Accompanied by police staff and independent panchas, the PSI proceeded to the location at 6:00 PM and apprehended the suspect at 6:15 PM. Upon enquiry, she disclosed her identity as Seme Rehema Watson alias Watson, aged 29 years, residing at Nargis Apartment Layout, Horamavu Junction, Bengaluru.

A personal search conducted at the spot yielded contraband ganja weighing 1 kilogram. The police seized the contraband under a spot seizure mahazar, prepared a detailed report, and submitted it to the Station House Officer (SHO) of Pulakeshinagar Police Station. Based on this report, Crime No. 354/2022 was registered under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act. The accused was arrested on November 8, 2022, produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, and remanded to judicial custody.

Arguments Submitted by Defence Counsel

Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned advocate Sri Devaraja P. presented several grounds seeking her enlargement on regular bail:

• False Implication: It was submitted that the petitioner is innocent, a law-abiding citizen, and was falsely planted in the case at the instance of extraneous elements without having any knowledge of the alleged contraband.
• Quantity Classification: Defence counsel argued that the seized quantity of 1 kg of ganja constitutes a small or intermediate non-commercial quantity under statutory notifications.
• Procedural Non-Compliance: The defence contended that mandatory statutory safeguards prescribed under Sections 41, 42, 47, 50, and 52 of the NDPS Act were not complied with during the raid, search, and recovery operations.
• Custody and Absence of Antecedents: It was urged that the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents, is not a habitual offender, and has been in judicial custody since November 8, 2022. Being a resident at the address stated in the cause title, she offered to abide by court conditions and furnish adequate sureties.

Prosecution Objections

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail petition, raising the following objections:

• Seizure of Contraband: Investigating authorities seized 1 kg of ganja directly from the physical possession of the accused under a detailed spot panchanama following a personal search.
• Gravity and Punishment: The alleged offence carries rigorous imprisonment extending up to 10 years along with a fine.
• Apprehension of Flight: The prosecution argued that a prima facie case exists establishing that the petitioner is a habitual drug dealer who, if enlarged on bail, would abscond, hamper the ongoing investigation, and protract trial proceedings.

Judicial Analysis and Court Reasoning

The Special Judge evaluated the prosecution papers, statutory notifications, and rival contentions to decide Point No. 1: whether the petitioner made out sufficient grounds for regular bail.

1. Statutory Classification of Contraband

The court examined Entry Sl. No. 55 of the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Notification S.O. 1055(E) dated October 19, 2001. Under the notification:

• Small Quantity for Ganja: Up to 1,000 grams (1 kg).
• Commercial Quantity for Ganja: 20 kilograms or more.

The court noted that the 1 kilogram (1,000 grams) of ganja seized in this case sits at the upper threshold of small quantity and within non-commercial limits, categorizing it as an intermediate quantity.

2. Non-Applicability of Section 37 Rigors and Precedent Analysis

The Special Judge emphasized that when the seized contraband is less than a commercial quantity, the strict statutory restrictions on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply. Consequently, the criteria for considering bail revert to standard principles under the regular Cr.P.C. framework, unless exceptional adverse circumstances are established by the prosecution.

To reinforce this legal principle, Special Judge Smt. B.S. Jayashree relied on the binding Supreme Court precedent in Birbal Prasad v. State of Bihar [(2018) 11 SCC 488]. In that decision, the Apex Court granted bail to an accused found in possession of 14 kg of ganja (a non-commercial quantity) who had no prior involvement in other cases. Holding that the precedent applied directly to the present facts, the court ruled that the petitioner’s bail plea deserved favorable consideration.

3. Investigation Progress and Absence of Antecedents

The court observed that the petitioner had no prior criminal antecedents and was not a habitual offender. A major portion of the investigation was complete since the incriminatory contraband had been seized and voluntary statements recorded. The alleged offences do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment, rendering further custodial interrogation unnecessary. Furthermore, the court held that the prosecution’s apprehensions regarding flight risk or trial delay could be effectively compensated by imposing stringent conditions.

It remains a settled principle of law that an order granting bail at the interlocutory stage is purely a procedural relief and does not amount to a final determination of the accused person’s guilt or innocence, which remains subject to full-fledged trial.

Final Bail Order and Terms Directing Release

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, Special Judge Smt. B.S. Jayashree allowed the petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and passed the following order:

The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The petitioner, Seme Rehema Watson alias Watson, is enlarged on bail in Crime No. 354/2022 of Pulakeshinagar Police Station on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like sum, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioner shall give attendance before the concerned Investigating Officer once a month, preferably on the first Monday of every month between 10.00 AM and 2.00 PM, till filing of the charge-sheet or further orders, whichever is earlier.
2. She shall not leave the jurisdiction of this court without prior permission.
3. She shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses or abscond.
4. She shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer for investigation.
5. She shall not commit a similar offence or any offence while on bail.
6. She shall furnish her photo ID proof and local address proof document before the court along with photo ID proof of her sureties.
7. She shall appear before the court on all hearing dates.
8. Breach of any of the conditions by the petitioner would entail cancellation of bail.