In a notable judicial order passed on July 20, 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. 7012/2022. The court enlarged Vijay R. (Accused No. 2) on regular bail in connection with Crime No. 98/2022 registered by the Bommanahalli 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 proceedings commenced following a report submitted by a Head Constable attached to the Bommanahalli Police Station. According to the prosecution case, on May 21, 2022, at approximately 2:15 PM, while the Head Constable was on patrolling duty in search of drug peddlers near HGS Road, Vajpayee Layout, Garvebhavipalya, an informant reported that two persons were selling ganja near HGS Company, Hosur Main Road.

The informant provided descriptions of the two individuals, noting that they had been selling contraband at the same spot for the past 2–3 days and were expected to arrive again that afternoon. After reporting the information to superior officers and obtaining necessary permission to conduct a raid, the Head Constable, accompanied by independent panchas and police staff, arrived at the location and intercepted two suspect individuals.

Upon enquiry, the suspects disclosed their personal details. Accused No. 2 was identified as Vijay R., aged 19 years, son of Rajeev, residing at No. 58, 4th Main, 3rd Cross, near Sree Sai Public School, Balaji Layout, Hongasandra, Bengaluru. A personal search conducted at the spot yielded 1 kilogram and 100 grams of ganja. The police seized the contraband under a spot seizure panchanama, prepared a detailed report, and submitted it to the Station House Officer (SHO), leading to the formal registration of Crime No. 98/2022 under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act. The petitioner was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody.

Arguments Submitted by Defence Counsel

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

• False Implication: It was submitted that the petitioner is a 19-year-old law-abiding citizen who is innocent 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 (1.1 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 search and recovery process.
• Custody and Absence of Antecedents: It was urged that there are no eyewitnesses testifying to the sale of contraband, the petitioner has no bad antecedents, and he is the sole breadwinner for his family. Being a permanent resident at the address stated in the cause title, he 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 1.1 kg of ganja directly from the possession of the accused under a detailed spot mahazar following a personal search.
• Severity of Sentence: The alleged offence carries rigorous imprisonment for a term that may extend up to 10 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 and hamper 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 observed that the 1 kg 100 grams of ganja 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 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, Vijay R., is enlarged on bail in Crime No. 98/2022 of Bommanahalli 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 local address proof document before the court 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.