A Special NDPS Court in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to a husband and wife duo, Manikanta alias Mani and Asha, in connection with a drug peddling case registered by the Mahadevapura Excise Police. Smt. B.S. Jayashree, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS cases, delivered the order on September 14, 2022, observing that the quantity of narcotics involved was small and the specific involvement of the couple required further judicial scrutiny.

The petitioners, Manikanta (30) and Asha (25), residents of Kunigal Town in Tumkuru District, approached the court seeking protection from arrest under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case, registered as Crime No. 12/2022-23, involves allegations under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

Details of the Excise Raid and Seizure

The prosecution’s case originated on August 18, 2022, when the Excise Inspector of Mahadevapura Sub Division received information regarding the sale of ganja near the CMR College auto stand in Kundalahalli colony. According to the police report, a team was formed to intercept a suspect who reportedly used a two-wheeler to deliver drugs to customers in the early hours of the morning.

During the raid, the police apprehended an individual identified as Accused No. 1, who was found in possession of 970 grams of dry ganja. The contraband was seized, and the individual was taken into custody. During the subsequent investigation, the authorities discovered that the two-wheeler used for the crime (Registration No. KA-06-HL-7367) was registered in the name of Asha (Petitioner No. 2). Based on this link and the statement of the first accused, the excise police sought to implicate her and her husband, Manikanta.

Arguments Presented by the Petitioners

Counsel representing the couple argued that a false case had been foisted upon them based on inconsistent allegations. The defense contended that the petitioners had no connection to the drug trade and were being targeted solely because of the ownership of the vehicle. They highlighted that Manikanta and Asha are the sole breadwinners for their family and have no prior criminal record or “bad antecedents.” The defense emphasized that the petitioners were willing to cooperate fully with the investigation and would abide by any conditions imposed by the court to prove their innocence.

The prosecution vehemently opposed the bail plea, characterizing the petitioners as “habitual drug dealers.” They argued that a prima facie case existed and that if granted bail, the couple might abscond or tamper with the ongoing investigation.

Court Observations and Legal Reasoning

Upon analyzing the rival contentions, the court noted that the primary reason for the petitioners’ involvement was the registration of the vehicle used by Accused No. 1. Judge B.S. Jayashree pointed out that the investigating agency had not placed any direct evidence on record to show that Manikanta or Asha were actively involved in drug trafficking or present at the scene of the crime.

Furthermore, the court highlighted that the amount of ganja seized—970 grams—is classified as a “small quantity” under the NDPS Act. In cases involving small quantities, the legal rigors for bail are generally less stringent compared to cases involving commercial quantities. The judge observed that further detention or the threat of arrest was not warranted at this stage, as the petitioners are permanent residents whose presence can be secured through legal conditions.

Final Verdict and Conditions of Release

The court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail, directing the Mahadevapura Excise Police to release Manikanta and Asha in the event of their arrest, subject to the execution of a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each and one surety of a like sum. To safeguard the interests of the prosecution, the court imposed the following mandatory conditions:

1. The petitioners must not directly or indirectly threaten or induce any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
2. They must mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer every first Sunday of the month until the charge sheet is filed.
3. They must attend all court hearings and must not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
4. They are prohibited from committing any similar offences while on bail.
5. They must furnish valid photo identity proofs for themselves and their sureties.

The court concluded that a breach of any of these conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek the cancellation of their bail. By granting this relief, the court has balanced the need for a thorough investigation with the protection of personal liberty in a case built largely on circumstantial vehicle ownership.