In a notable judicial order delivered on July 19, 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. 6860/2022. The court enlarged Veerabhadra (Accused No. 2) on regular bail in connection with Crime No. 226/2022 registered by the Hosakote Police Station. The petitioner was facing prosecution for offences punishable under Section 20(a) and Section 20(b) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

Prosecution Allegations and Procedural History

The criminal proceedings commenced following a report submitted by a Police Constable attached to the Hosakote Police Station. According to the prosecution, while on patrolling duty in an ERSS 112 emergency response vehicle (bearing registration number KA 22 G 1134) on the night of June 30, 2022, the constable received credible information from the ERSS Control Room on July 1, 2022, at approximately 8:05 AM. The information indicated that an individual named Veerabhadra had illegally cultivated ganja plants at Jadinahalli (Jadaganahalli) Village, Hosakote Taluk.

Accompanied by staff and independent panchas, the police team arrived at the suspect’s residence at 8:20 AM and conducted a search. Behind the house, intermingled among flower plants and curry leaf plants, officers discovered two ganja plants grown to a height of approximately 6 feet. The police uprooted the two plants, which weighed a total of 3 kilograms and 500 grams.

The police seized the uprooted contraband under a spot seizure panchanama and submitted a detailed report to the Station House Officer (SHO), leading to the registration of Crime No. 226/2022 under Section 20(a) of the NDPS Act. The petitioner, Veerabhadra, aged about 40 years, son of B. Chinnappa, residing at Jadinahalli Village, Hosakote Taluk, arrayed as Accused No. 2, was formally arrested, produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, and remanded to judicial custody.

Arguments Submitted by Defence Counsel

Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned advocate Sri V.G. urged several grounds seeking enlargement on regular bail:

• False Implication and Lack of Knowledge: The petitioner asserted that he is an innocent, law-abiding citizen who had been falsely implicated at the instance of extraneous elements without having any knowledge of the alleged illegal growth.
• Non-Commercial Quantity: Defence counsel emphasized that the total weight of the seized plants (3.5 kg) fell strictly within the intermediate, non-commercial quantity framework.
• Procedural Non-Compliance: The defence submitted that mandatory statutory safeguards under Sections 41, 42, 47, 50, and 52 of the NDPS Act were not complied with during the raid, search, and seizure operations.
• Custody and Local Roots: It was argued that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, is the sole breadwinner for his family, and is a permanent resident at the cause title address. He undertook to abide by all court conditions and offer reliable sureties for his due appearance.

Prosecution Objections

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail petition, advancing the following arguments:

• Seizure of Cultivated Contraband: Investigating authorities recovered 3.5 kg of uprooted ganja plants grown directly behind the residence of the accused under a detailed spot mahazar.
• Severity of Sentence: The alleged offence carries rigorous imprisonment for a term extending up to 10 years along with a fine.
• Risk 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 and tamper with the ongoing investigation.

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. 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 3.5 kilograms of ganja plants recovered in this case exceeds 1 kg but remains far below 20 kg, placing it explicitly 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 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 bail conditions.

It remains a settled principle of criminal law that an order granting or refusing bail at the pre-trial stage is purely a procedural determination 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, Veerabhadra, is enlarged on bail in Crime No. 226/2022 of Hosakote 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 the Investigating Officer for investigation.
5. He shall not commit a similar offence or any offence while on bail.
6. He shall furnish his photo ID proof and local address proof document before the court along with 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.