In a significant ruling concerning the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, a Special Court in Bengaluru has granted regular bail to 25-year-old Deepak Samuel, alias Guddul, who was arrested in connection with a ganja trafficking case. The order, delivered on August 24, 2022, by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS, emphasizes the legal distinction between intermediate and commercial quantities of narcotics.

Background of the Basavanagudi Police Raid

The case originated from an operation conducted by the Basavanagudi Police Station. According to the prosecution’s report, on July 20, 2022, while police personnel were on patrolling duty near APS College, they received credible intelligence regarding drug trafficking near the playground at Armugam Circle. After obtaining necessary permissions from superior officers, the police conducted a raid and apprehended the first accused (Accused Number 1).

During a personal search of Accused Number 1, the police recovered 1.8 kilograms of ganja. Following his arrest, the accused provided a voluntary statement identifying his associates. He revealed that he was engaged in the sale of narcotics alongside two others, leading to the arrest of Accused Number 2 and the present petitioner, Deepak Samuel (Accused Number 3), on July 21, 2022.

Upon the arrest of the petitioner and Accused Number 2, the investigating agency seized an additional 7.5 kilograms of ganja, bringing the total seizure in the case to 9.3 kilograms.

Arguments for the Petitioner and Defense Strategy

The petitioner, represented by his legal counsel, argued that he was a victim of false implication and had been “planted” in the case by the police. The defense maintained that Deepak Samuel had no prior criminal record and hailed from a respectable family. They further contended that he was the sole breadwinner for his family and that his continued incarceration would cause them undue hardship.

A primary pillar of the defense’s argument was the non-compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards. The counsel alleged that the investigating agency failed to follow the strict provisions of Section 41 (Power to issue warrant and authorisation), Section 42 (Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation), and Section 50 (Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Furthermore, they emphasized that the total quantity of ganja seized did not meet the “commercial quantity” threshold defined by the law.

Prosecution Opposes Bail Citing Grave Offence

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application, categorizing the petitioner as a habitual drug dealer whose activities pose a threat to society. The prosecution argued that the seizure of over 9 kilograms of ganja established a prima facie case and that the offence carries a penalty of rigorous imprisonment for up to ten years. They expressed concerns that if released, the petitioner might abscond, hamper the investigation, or return to illegal drug trafficking.

The Court’s Rationale: Intermediate vs. Commercial Quantity

In her analysis, Judge B.S. Jayashree focused on the weight of the seized contraband. According to the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E), the thresholds for ganja are clearly defined:

• Small Quantity: 1,000 grams (1 Kilogram)
• Commercial Quantity: 20 Kilograms

The court noted that the 9.3 kilograms of ganja seized in this case constitutes an “intermediate quantity.” This distinction is legally vital because the stringent rigors of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985—which makes it extremely difficult for an accused to obtain bail—apply only to cases involving commercial quantities.

The Judge cited the Supreme Court of India precedent in Birbal Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (2018), where the apex court held that in cases involving non-commercial quantities where the accused has no prior record, bail should generally be granted pending trial.

The court observed that since the major portion of the investigation was concluded and the incriminatory articles were already in police custody, further custodial interrogation was unnecessary. Furthermore, the offence is not punishable by death or life imprisonment.

Terms and Conditions of the Bail Order

The court allowed the petition and ordered the release of Deepak Samuel on a personal bond of 1,00,000 Rupees with two sureties of the same amount. To ensure the integrity of the legal process, the court imposed the following strict conditions:

1. The petitioner must attend the office of the Investigating Officer once a month (preferably on the first Monday) until the filing of the charge sheet.
2. The petitioner is prohibited from leaving the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
3. He shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses or abscond.
4. He must fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation.
5. He shall not commit any similar offences while out on bail.
6. He must furnish valid 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 automatic cancellation of the bail. This ruling underscores the judicial trend of balancing individual liberty with the severity of narcotics laws when the quantity involved does not reach the highest legal threshold.