The Special NDPS Court in Bengaluru has granted bail to 27-year-old Santhosh Subramani Settejana, who was arrested in connection with a high-profile drug seizure and arms case involving a known rowdy sheeter. Smt. B.S. Jayashree, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS, delivered the order on December 22, 2022, highlighting that no incriminating materials were recovered directly from the petitioner at the time of his arrest.

Santhosh, a resident of Chandra Layout and an Approval Specialist at Neat Global Services, was arrested as Accused No. 4 in Crime Number 433/2022 registered by the Rajagopalnagar Police. The case involves serious allegations under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 25(1B)(B) of the Arms Act, 1959, and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which pertains to punishment for theft.

The Background of the Police Raid and Arrests

The criminal proceedings began on December 11, 2022, when the Police Sub-Inspector of Rajagopalnagar was on patrolling duty. Acting on credible information, the police targeted a location on Laggere Main Road where four individuals were reportedly armed with deadly weapons, intending to harm the public. The police spotted a rowdy sheeter named Tejas, alias Tiger, along with three associates. While the suspects initially fled the scene, leaving a long chopper behind, the police registered a suo-moto case and began a manhunt.

Later that evening, the police apprehended Tejas near Hussain Bike Point. He was found in possession of a stolen motorcycle and a plastic cover containing 50.52 grams of MDMA. Under the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification, 10 grams of MDMA is classified as a commercial quantity; therefore, the 50.52 grams seized from Accused No. 1 constituted a significant commercial haul.

The petitioner, Santhosh Subramani Settejana, was subsequently arrested on December 13, 2022, based on the voluntary statement provided by Tejas. The prosecution alleged that Santhosh was one of the individuals armed with weapons at the Laggere bridge and was actively involved in drug peddling alongside the main accused.

Arguments Presented by the Defense and Prosecution

Defense counsel Harish C.S. argued that Santhosh is a well-educated individual from a respectable family with no prior criminal record. The defense contended that Santhosh was not arrested at the scene of the alleged crime but was forcibly taken from his house. Crucially, it was pointed out that the police failed to recover any narcotics or weapons from Santhosh’s possession or at his instance during his custodial interrogation.

The prosecution strongly opposed the bail plea, emphasizing that the seized MDMA was of a commercial quantity. They argued that Santhosh was an active participant in a heinous crime and that his release would pose a threat to the public, as he might continue selling drugs, abscond, or tamper with prosecution witnesses.

Judicial Reasoning for Granting Bail

In her detailed analysis, Judge B.S. Jayashree noted that while the contraband seized in the case was indeed a commercial quantity, it was recovered solely from Accused No. 1. The court observed that the investigating agency had not collected any substantial material at this stage to prove Santhosh’s specific role in the drug trafficking operation or his presence at the initial raid site.

The judge highlighted that Santhosh had been interrogated in custody, yet no incriminatory material was discovered. Furthermore, the court took into account Santhosh’s lack of criminal antecedents and his status as a permanent resident of Bengaluru with stable employment. The court concluded that the major portion of the investigation concerning Santhosh was finished and that his continued detention was not warranted.

Conditions for Release

The court allowed the petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and ordered Santhosh’s release on a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of the like sum. The release is subject to the following strict conditions:

1. The petitioner must attend the office of the Investigating Officer once a month, specifically on the first Monday, until the charge sheet is filed.
2. He is prohibited from leaving the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
3. He must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or abscond.
4. He must cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation.
5. He is strictly prohibited from committing any similar offenses while out on bail.
6. He must furnish photo identification and address proof for himself and his sureties.
7. He must appear before the court on every hearing date.

The court warned that any breach of these conditions would lead to the immediate cancellation of his bail. This ruling underscores the judicial principle that even in cases involving commercial quantities of drugs, the lack of direct recovery and evidence against a specific co-accused can be valid grounds for granting liberty.