Bengaluru, March 28, 2024 – In a significant ruling that pivots on the classification of the seized substance’s quantity, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge & Special Judge (NDPS) in Bengaluru, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, granted bail to an accused in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act case. The order, issued on March 28, 2024, allows the petitioner, Sri Anil Kumar Ray, to be released on bail after being arrested for the alleged possession of 6 kilograms of ganja.
The case, registered as Crl.Misc.No.2948/2024, concerned an offense punishable under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, arising from Cr.No.251/2024 of Mahadevapura Police Station. The accused, represented by Sri Noorpasha, sought bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
The Petitioner’s Submission and Prosecution’s Objection
Sri Anil Kumar Ray, S/o Narendra Prasad Ray, aged about 30 years, a resident of Odisha, argued that he was innocent and falsely implicated, claiming no knowledge of the alleged crime. His counsel stressed that the mandatory provisions for search and seizure under the NDPS Act had not been complied with. Furthermore, while the alleged offense is non-bailable, it is not punishable with imprisonment for life or death. The petitioner assured the court of his willingness to abide by any conditions and offer surety, noting his permanent residence and lack of criminal antecedents.
The prosecution, represented by the Public Prosecutor, vehemently objected to the bail plea. The State argued that the investigating agency had seized 6 kilograms of ganja, establishing a prima facie case against the petitioner. They highlighted that the offense carries rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years and labeled the petitioner as a “habitual drug dealer.” The prosecution expressed concern that granting bail would lead to the accused absconding and potentially hampering the ongoing investigation.
Court’s Analysis: Intermediate Quantity is Key
The core of the court’s decision rested on classifying the 6 kilograms of ganja seized. The court meticulously analyzed the rival contentions and the prosecution’s documents, noting the seizure on March 19, 2024.
Crucially, the court referred to the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E) dated October 19, 2001, which defines small and commercial quantities for various narcotic substances. For ganja (cannabis), the notification sets the small quantity at 1,000 grams (1 kg) and the commercial quantity at 20 kilograms.
The court definitively concluded that the 6 kilograms of ganja seized from Sri Anil Kumar Ray constitutes an intermediate quantity—it is more than the small quantity but less than the commercial quantity.
Rigors of Section 37 Deemed Inapplicable
This determination of “intermediate quantity” proved decisive. The order explicitly referenced a landmark Supreme Court decision, Birbal Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (2018 11 SCC 488). In that case, the Hon’ble Apex Court granted bail for the seizure of 14 kilograms of ganja, confirming it was a non-commercial quantity.
The Bengaluru court ruled: “When the quantity is less than commercial quantity, rigors of Sec.37 of the NDPS Act will not attract, and factors become similar to bail petitions under regular statutes normal, unless the prosecution points towards exceptional circumstances.”
Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for granting bail, especially when the offense involves commercial quantities, requiring the court to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail. By ruling that the seized amount was only an intermediate quantity, the court circumvented these stringent checks.
Investigation Status and Conditions
Furthermore, the court observed that the major portion of the investigation had already concluded, as the incriminating article was seized and voluntary statements recorded. It determined that further custodial interrogation was not warranted. Addressing the prosecution’s fear of the petitioner absconding, the court stated that this apprehension could be “compensated by imposing stringent conditions.”
The Bail Order
Concluding its analysis, the court allowed the petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., enlarging the petitioner on bail. Sri Anil Kumar Ray was directed to execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum, subject to the following stringent conditions:
- The petitioner shall give attendance before the concerned Investigating Officer (I.O.) once a month, preferably on the first Monday, between 10:00 am and 2:00 pm, until the charge sheet is filed or further orders are issued.
- He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
- He shall not tamper with the witnesses or abscond.
- He shall cooperate with the I.O. for investigation.
- He shall not commit a similar offense or any offense while on bail.
- He must furnish his photo ID and local address proof document, along with the photo ID proofs of his sureties, before the court.
- He shall appear before the court on all hearing dates.
- Breach of any condition will result in the cancellation of bail.
The order was dictated, corrected, signed, and pronounced in Open Court by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS), Bengaluru, on March 28, 2024. This judgment reinforces the critical distinction between small, intermediate, and commercial quantities under the NDPS Act for the consideration of bail.
Would you like me to find out the current status of the trial for this case, if available?