The XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS in Bengaluru has rejected the bail application of 23-year-old Roshan Kumar Mishra, who was caught in possession of a massive quantity of bhang and ganja. The court, presided over by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, delivered the order on July 11, 2022, highlighting the severe impact of narcotic substances on the younger generation and the stringent legal requirements for bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

Roshan Kumar Mishra, a native of Madhubani District in Bihar residing in Bengaluru, was arrested following a police raid in the Begur area. The case, registered under Crime Number 143/2022, involves serious allegations under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

The Police Raid and Massive Seizure

The incident dates back to May 31, 2022, when a Head Constable of the Begur Police Station received credible information about two individuals selling prohibited narcotics near a restaurant in Chikkabegur. After obtaining the necessary permissions from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, a raiding party was formed.

During the operation, the police used a decoy to confirm the illegal activities. Once the decoy signaled that the suspect was in possession of the contraband, the police team moved in and apprehended Mishra. A search of his belongings revealed a staggering quantity of narcotics: 29 kilograms of bhang (marketed under various brand names such as Tarang, Masti Munaka, and Power) and 400 grams of ganja. The accused admitted to purchasing the substances in his home state of Bihar to sell them to customers in Bengaluru.

Legal Debate: Is Bhang a Prohibited Substance Under the NDPS Act?

The primary defense raised by Mishra’s counsel was a technical one. The defense argued that “bhang” is not explicitly defined as a prohibited substance under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. They contended that unless the investigating agency could establish the exact chemical content of the seized packets, the penal provisions of Section 20(B) could not be attracted.

The defense cited various rulings from the High Courts of Delhi, Punjab and Haryana, and Jammu & Kashmir to support the claim that bhang should be treated differently from ganja or charas. They argued that Mishra was falsely implicated and that the procedural requirements of the NDPS Act were not followed during the recovery process.

The Court’s Strict Stance on Public Health and Statutory Presumption

Judge B.S. Jayashree remained unconvinced by the technical arguments. The court noted that while the definition of ganja in the Act might be specific, the possession of 29 kilograms of a psychoactive substance—regardless of the name on the packet—indicates a culpable mental state. The court emphasized that such products, often sold to the younger generation, pose significant health hazards and physical health impacts.

The court invoked Section 54 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which establishes a “statutory presumption.” According to this section, the court can presume that the accused has committed an offence if they are found in possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance and fail to account for that possession satisfactorily.

The ruling stated that Mishra failed to explain why he was carrying such a large quantity of bhang when he was apprehended. The judge remarked that the edibility or legal status of the specific brand of bhang is a matter to be determined during a full trial, but for the purpose of a bail hearing, the sheer volume of the seizure was a decisive factor.

Stringent Bail Parameters Under Section 37

The court also discussed the rigorous standards for bail as laid out in Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. This section mandates that bail should not be granted unless the court is satisfied that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

Citing recent Supreme Court precedents, including the case of Union of India vs. Mohammed Nawaz Khan (2021) and State of Kerala vs. Rajesh (2020), the judge noted that “reasonable grounds” means something more than a prima facie case. It requires the existence of facts sufficient to justify the satisfaction that the accused is innocent.

In Mishra’s case, the court found that the evidence—the 29 kilograms of bhang and 400 grams of ganja found in his immediate possession—created a strong case against him. The court held that the liberty of an individual must be balanced against the interest of society, particularly in cases involving lethal substances that ruin the lives of the youth.

Final Decision

The court concluded that the petitioner had not made out sufficient grounds for release. The massive quantity of the seizure and the lack of a satisfactory explanation for its possession led the court to deny the bail application. Roshan Kumar Mishra remains in judicial custody as the investigation and trial proceedings continue.