In a notable judicial order passed on August 12, 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. 7914/2022. The court enlarged Syed Abid Pasha (Accused No. 2) on regular bail in connection with Crime No. 99/2022 registered by the V.V. Puram Police Station. The petitioner was facing prosecution for offences punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

Prosecution Allegations and Procedural History

The criminal law was set into motion based on a report submitted by the Police Inspector (PI) of V.V. Puram Police Station. According to the prosecution case, on July 27, 2022, at approximately 2:00 PM, an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) received credible information while discharging duties at the police station that certain individuals were selling contraband to the public near a water tank on V.V. Puram Service Road, Bengaluru.

After reporting the information to the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), V.V. Puram, and obtaining necessary permission to conduct a raid, the ASI along with independent panchas proceeded to the spot. Mounting surveillance at around 2:30 PM, the police team observed two individuals displaying a bag to members of the public. On suspicion, both individuals were intercepted and questioned regarding the contents of the bag. The suspects admitted to possessing ganja. Upon opening and weighing the contents, the bag was found to contain 8 kilograms and 190 grams of ganja.

The ACP, V.V. Puram, was summoned to the scene, where a personal search was conducted, and mobile phones were seized. A detailed spot panchanama was drawn, and a report was submitted to the Station House Officer (SHO), leading to the formal registration of Crime No. 99/2022 under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. The petitioner, Syed Abid Pasha, aged 36 years, son of Syed Azgar, residing at Medimallasandra Post, Medimallasandra, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, arrayed as Accused No. 2 in the case, was formally arrested alongside his co-accused, produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, and remanded to judicial custody.

Arguments Submitted by Defence Counsel

Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned advocate Sri S.H. presented several grounds seeking his enlargement on regular bail:

• False Implication: It was submitted that the petitioner is an innocent, law-abiding citizen and was falsely planted in the case by the complainant police without having any knowledge of the alleged contraband.
• Intermediate Quantity Classification: Defence counsel argued that the seized contraband (8.19 kg of ganja) falls strictly within the non-commercial (intermediate) quantity framework under the NDPS Act.
• Procedural Non-Compliance: The defence contended that mandatory provisions under Sections 41, 42, 47, 50, and 52 of the NDPS Act were not complied with during the raid, search, and recovery process.
• Custody and Absence of Antecedents: It was urged that the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents and is a permanent resident at the address stated in the cause title. The petitioner promised to abide by all court conditions and furnish adequate sureties for his due appearance.

Prosecution Objections

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

• Recovery of Contraband: Investigating authorities seized 8 kg 190 grams of ganja directly from the joint possession of the accused under a detailed spot mahazar following a personal search supervised by a gazetted officer.
• Severity of Sentence: The prosecution submitted that the alleged offence carries rigorous imprisonment extending up to 20 years along with a fine.
• Apprehension of Absconding: The prosecution argued that a prima facie case exists establishing that the petitioner is a habitual drug dealer who, if released on bail, would abscond, tamper with prosecution evidence, and continue selling narcotic substances to the public.

Judicial Analysis and Detailed Legal Reasoning

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

1. Statutory Classification of Ganja Quantity

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

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

The court noted that the 8 kg 190 grams of ganja recovered in this case exceeds 1 kg but remains well below 20 kg, placing it firmly in the category of 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 criminal antecedents. 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 Custodial Necessity

The court observed that a major portion of the investigation had concluded since the incriminatory contraband was seized and the voluntary statement of the accused recorded. The alleged offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, 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 bail conditions.

It remains a settled principle of criminal 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 Imposed Conditions

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, Syed Abid Pasha, is enlarged on bail in Crime No. 99/2022 of V.V. Puram 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 charge sheet or further orders, whichever is earlier.
2. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of this court without prior permission.
3. He shall not tamper with the witness or abscond.
4. He shall co-operate with I.O for investigation.
5. He shall not commit similar offence or any offence while on bail.
6. He shall furnish his photo ID proof and photo ID proof of his sureties.
7. He shall appear before the court on all hearing dates.
8. Breach of any of the conditions by the petitioner would entail cancellation of bail.