In a significant legal development involving the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, a Special NDPS Court in Bengaluru has granted bail to Imtiyas, who was arrayed as Accused No. 4 in a case registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau. Smt. B.S. Jayashree, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS cases, delivered the order on December 9, 2022, emphasizing that the quantity of the drug seized fell under the category of small quantity as defined by law.

The Case Background and Prosecution Claims

The case, registered under NCB F No. 48/1/29/2022/BZU, originated when the Narcotics Control Bureau intercepted four parcels at Sri Maruthi Courier Services Pvt. Ltd. located in Hebbal, Bengaluru. Upon inspection, the IO from the NCB discovered a total of 581 grams of flowering and fruiting tops of cannabis, commonly known as ganja.

The prosecution detailed the specific weights of the contraband found in each parcel: 259 grams, 108 grams, 105 grams, and 109 grams respectively. Based on the documentation accompanying these parcels, the NCB identified four individuals as the intended receivers: Rebacca Maggie Pereira, Vanshika Kasera, Saikar Bhattacharyya, and the petitioner, Imtiyas.

According to the NCB’s objections, follow-up actions led to the interception and enquiry of these individuals. In his recorded statement, Imtiyas allegedly admitted that while he had not booked the parcels himself, he was aware that Accused No. 1 had ordered the ganja. The prosecution claimed that Imtiyas was apprehended when he accompanied Accused No. 1 to collect the parcels. Furthermore, the NCB noted that Imtiyas admitted to consuming ganja occasionally and worked as a Client Service Manager in the same event company as the first accused.

Defense Arguments for Imtiyas

Represented by Sri Balakrishnan Jagtap, the petitioner maintained his innocence throughout the proceedings. The defense argued that Imtiyas was a law-abiding citizen with no prior criminal record and no specific knowledge of the drugs contained within the parcels.

A primary pillar of the defense’s argument was the location of the seizure. The contraband was intercepted at a courier office in Hebbal, which the defense noted was far from the petitioner’s residence. They contended that there was no evidence of actual possession or intent. It was further argued that since the parcel was not booked by the petitioner and the drug was not found in his personal baggage, his involvement was incidental at best.

Critically, the defense pointed out that even if the prosecution’s claims were taken at face value, the 581 grams of ganja seized across all four parcels constituted a small quantity under the Ministry of Finance notification. They highlighted that Imtiyas was the sole breadwinner for his family and was prepared to abide by any conditions the court might impose.

Court Analysis and Legal Reasoning

The court’s decision hinged on the classification of the seized substance under the NDPS Act. Judge B.S. Jayashree referenced the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E), which specifies that for ganja, a quantity of up to 1,000 grams (1 kg) is considered a small quantity, while 20 kg or more is considered a commercial quantity.

The court noted that the total seizure of 581 grams clearly falls below the 1,000-gram threshold. This classification is legally significant because the rigorous bail restrictions found in Section 37 of the NDPS Act—which usually apply to commercial quantities and make bail difficult to obtain—do not apply to small quantities. In such instances, the court treats the bail application under standard criminal justice principles.

The judge observed that the major portion of the investigation appeared to be concluded since the incriminatory articles had already been seized. Additionally, the court noted that the offences alleged were not punishable by death or life imprisonment. Given that Imtiyas is a permanent resident of Bengaluru, the court found that the risk of him fleeing from justice could be mitigated by imposing strict conditions rather than continuing his incarceration.

Final Verdict and Conditions

Concluding that Imtiyas had made out sufficient grounds for bail, the court allowed the petition. He was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of a like sum. The court imposed the following conditions to ensure his cooperation with the ongoing legal process:

The petitioner must not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission. He is strictly prohibited from tampering with witnesses or attempting to abscond. He must not commit any further offences while out on bail and must furnish photo ID proof for himself and his sureties. Finally, the court warned that any breach of these conditions would result in the immediate cancellation of his bail.