Bengaluru Court Rejects Bail to Syed Imran and Dinesh in 30 kg Ganja Seizure Case Under NDPS Act

In a significant judicial order delivered on July 29, 2022, the XXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, LL.M., rejected the bail petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6967/2022. The court refused to grant regular bail to Syed Imran (Accused No. 1) and Dinesh alias Tenaton (Accused No. 2) in connection with Crime No. 127/2022 registered by the Nelamangala Rural Police Station 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 were set into motion following a report submitted by the Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) of Nelamangala Rural Police Station. According to the prosecution case, on July 5, 2022, at approximately 12:15 PM, the complainant ASI received credible information while on patrol duty that two persons were selling ganja to the public from a motorcycle on a public road in Byadarahalli Village, near Rashi Gate Layout, within the jurisdictional limits of Nelamangala Rural Police Station.

After recording the information, the ASI notified superior officers and obtained formal permission to conduct a raid. Accompanied by police staff and independent panchas, the ASI arrived at the location, identified two suspect persons, and apprehended them at the scene. Upon enquiry, they disclosed their identities:

Syed Imran (Accused No. 1): Aged 38 years, son of Syed Nazeer Ahmed, residing at No. 302, Parvathi Nagar, 6th Cross, T.C. Palya, K.R. Puram, Bengaluru.
Dinesh alias Tenaton (Accused No. 2): Aged 23 years, son of Murthy, residing at K.R. Puram, Bengaluru.

A search of the bag carried on the motorcycle resulted in the recovery and seizure of 30 kilograms of ganja. The police seized the contraband under a detailed spot mahazar, arrested both accused, and submitted a report to the Station House Officer (SHO), which formed the basis for registering Crime No. 127/2022 under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act. The petitioners were produced before the jurisdictional magistrate and remanded to judicial custody.

Arguments Submitted by Defence Counsel

Appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned advocate Sri J.V.S. urged the following grounds seeking their enlargement on regular bail:

Claim of Innocence and False Implication: It was submitted that the petitioners are innocent, law-abiding citizens, and were falsely implanted in the case by the respondent police.
Procedural Non-Compliance: The defence contended that mandatory procedural safeguards prescribed under the NDPS Act were not followed during the raid and recovery process.
Contention on Quantity: The petitioners initially asserted that the quantity seized from their possession was less than commercial quantity.
Gender Argument in Submissions: Defence counsel argued in submissions that the petitioners were women with no connection to the crime and offered solvent sureties for their due appearance before the court.

Prosecution Objections

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

Commercial Quantity Seizure: The investigating agency seized 30 kilograms of ganja directly from the conscious possession of the accused under a spot panchanama. Under statutory specifications, 20 kilograms constitutes a commercial quantity, thereby attracting the strict statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Severity of Sentences: The alleged offence involves commercial quantity drug peddling punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years and may extend up to 20 years, along with a fine.
Risk of Recidivism and Flight: The prosecution contended that the petitioners are habitual drug peddlers who, if released on bail, would abscond, tamper with prosecution witnesses, repeat similar offences, and ruin the careers of the younger generation.

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 petitioners 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.

Since the total quantity seized from the petitioners’ motorcycle was 30 kilograms of ganja, the court conclusively established that it constituted a commercial quantity, bringing the bail application directly under the rigorous limitations of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act.

2. Statutory Bar Under Section 37 NDPS Act and Precedents

The court emphasized that for offences involving commercial quantities, Section 37 imposes mandatory twin conditions: bail cannot be granted unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and that they are not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

To reinforce this legal standard, Special Judge Smt. B.S. Jayashree referred to several authoritative Supreme Court precedents:

Union of India v. Mohammed Nawaz Khan (Crl. Appeal No. 1043/2021, dated Sept 22, 2021): The Apex Court highlighted that stringent parameters are prescribed under the NDPS Act to curb drug trafficking. The Supreme Court set aside a High Court bail order, observing that findings on lack of direct physical possession or procedural arguments under Section 42 do not absolve courts from rigorous scrutiny under Section 37(1)(b)(ii).
State of Kerala v. Rajesh [(2020) 12 SCC 122]: The Supreme Court held that “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds and requires substantial probable causes for believing the accused is not guilty. The Apex Court cautioned that liberal approaches in granting bail under the NDPS Act are completely uncalled for.
State of M.P. v. Kajad [(2001) 7 SCC 673]: The Supreme Court affirmed that under Section 37(1)(b)(ii), negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception.
Babua v. State of Orissa [(2001) 2 SCC 566]: The Apex Court ruled that individual liberty must be balanced against societal interest. Given the lethal impact of drug trafficking on society, keeping accused persons behind bars during trial is justified when prima facie material exists.

3. Application of Law to Present Facts

Applying these dictums, the court noted that 30 kilograms of ganja was seized directly from the two-wheeler vehicle of the petitioners under a spot panchanama, establishing conscious possession. The defence failed to place any material on record to demonstrate that the accused were in no way connected with the contraband seized from their vehicle.

Finding strong prima facie material establishing the petitioners’ involvement in a commercial quantity drug offence, the court held that the mandatory conditions under Section 37 were not satisfied. It remains a settled principle of 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 persons’ guilt or innocence, which remains subject to full-fledged trial.

Final Order

Answering Point No. 1 in the negative, Special Judge Smt. B.S. Jayashree formally rejected the bail petition on July 29, 2022:

The petition filed by the petitioners, Syed Imran and Dinesh alias Tenaton, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.