Bengaluru, June 23, 2022 – In a significant ruling, the Court of the XXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru (CCH.33), granted regular bail to Chelaram, aged 43, who was arrested in connection with the seizure of 700 grams of opium. The order, passed by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, Special Judge (NDPS), on June 23, 2022, emphasizes that the seized quantity falls under the intermediate quantity category, thus relaxing the stringent bail conditions generally imposed under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

The petitioner, Chelaram, S/o Kanaramji, a resident of Muddinapalya, Bengaluru, was the accused No.1 in Cr.No.79/2022 registered by the Malleshwaram Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 18(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985. His bail application, Crl.Misc.No.6022/2022, was filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Details of the Allegation

The prosecution’s case, as detailed in the Police Inspector’s report, is that on May 29, 2022, at approximately 11:00 AM, the complainant, while on patrolling duty, received credible information that a person was selling opium near the Malleshwaram 18th cross playground. Following procedure, the officer obtained permission from his superior and, along with his staff and panchas (independent witnesses), proceeded to the location. The individual, identified as Chelaram, was apprehended, and a personal search allegedly resulted in the seizure of 700 grams of opium. A detailed seizure panchanama was drawn up, leading to the registration of the case. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since the date of his arrest on May 29, 2022.

Arguments Before the Court

Counsel for the petitioner argued that Chelaram was innocent and had been falsely implicated, claiming he was unaware of the seized drug. The defense primarily hinged on the non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, specifically Sections 41, 42, 50, 52, and 57. Crucially, the defense emphasized that the seized quantity of 700 grams was not a commercial quantity. The petitioner, asserted as the sole bread earner of his family and having no bad antecedents, expressed his readiness to abide by any conditions imposed by the Court.

The Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail plea, contending that the accused was found in possession of a narcotic substance, constituting a prima facie case. The prosecution argued that the offence is punishable with rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years and labeled the accused as a “habitual drug dealer.” It was argued that granting bail would allow Chelaram to abscond and hamper the ongoing investigation.

Judicial Analysis and Ruling on Quantity

The Special Judge meticulously analyzed the rival contentions, particularly focusing on the quantity of the seized drug. Citing the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E) dated October 19, 2001, the Court highlighted the official classification for opium:

• Small Quantity: 25 grams
• Commercial Quantity: 2.5 kilograms (2,500 grams)

Since the seized quantity of opium was 700 grams, the Court determined it falls squarely into the category of intermediate quantity—a quantity greater than small quantity but less than commercial quantity.

This determination was central to the Court’s decision, as it significantly impacts the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Section 37 imposes strict limitations on granting bail for offences involving commercial quantities, requiring the Court to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. The Court ruled that when the quantity is less than commercial quantity, the rigors of Section 37 do not attract, and the bail application must be considered under the normal principles governing bail petitions under standard criminal statutes.

The Court relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Birbal Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (2018 11 SCC 488), where the Supreme Court granted bail in a non-commercial quantity case, affirming that the bail plea of the accused should be considered under such circumstances.

Conclusion and Bail Conditions

The Court further noted that the accused does not have any previous criminal antecedents and is not a habitual offender. Since the incriminatory article had already been seized, the major portion of the investigation was deemed concluded, and further custodial interrogation was not warranted. The Court concluded that the prosecution’s apprehension regarding absconding could be met by imposing stringent conditions.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed. The petitioner, Chelaram, was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two sureties for the like sum.

The release is subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioner shall give attendance before the concerned Investigating Officer (I.O.) once in a month, preferably on the first Monday of every month, between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM, until the filing of the charge sheet or further orders.
2. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
3. He shall not tamper with the witnesses or abscond.
4. He shall cooperate with the I.O. for the 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, along with the photo ID proof of his sureties.
7. He shall appear before the Court on all dates of hearing.
8. Breach of any of these conditions will lead to the automatic cancellation of the bail.