The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances in Bengaluru has granted bail to 37-year-old Subramani, also known as Subramanyam K, following his arrest in connection with the possession of ganja. The order, delivered by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS, emphasizes that the quantity of the seized contraband falls under the “intermediate” category, making the accused eligible for bail under specific judicial conditions.

The legal proceedings, registered under Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8670/2022, pertain to an incident involving the J.P. Nagar Police Station. The petitioner, a resident of Chittoor district in Andhra Pradesh, was booked under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. This specific section of the legislation deals with the punishment for the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, import inter-state, or export inter-state of cannabis, specifically relating to quantities that are more than small but less than commercial.

Background of the Police Raid and Arrest

The prosecution’s case is based on a report submitted by the Police Sub-Inspector of J.P. Nagar Police Station. According to the official records, on August 16, 2022, at approximately 10:00 PM, the police received credible intelligence that an individual was located at 32nd Main, J.P. Nagar 1st Stage, attempting to sell narcotics from a car.

Given the urgency of the situation and the lack of time to secure a formal search warrant, the complainant informed the Assistant Commissioner of Police and obtained the necessary permission to conduct an immediate raid. The police team, along with independent witnesses known as panchas, arrived at the scene by 10:45 PM. They identified a person moving suspiciously and subsequently apprehended him. Upon searching the dicky of the petitioner’s vehicle, the police discovered a bag containing 2 kilograms and 200 grams of ganja. The contraband and the vehicle were seized, and the accused was taken into judicial custody.

Arguments Raised by the Defense and Prosecution

The petitioner, represented by his legal counsel, argued that he was an innocent and law-abiding citizen who had been falsely implicated at the instance of extraneous elements. The defense maintained that Subramani had no prior knowledge of the crime and that no contraband was actually seized from his direct possession. A significant point raised by the defense was the alleged non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which dictates the procedure for a personal search of a suspect.

Furthermore, the defense highlighted that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner for his family and has no prior criminal record or bad antecedents. They argued that since the offence is not punishable by death or life imprisonment, and the investigation had largely concluded with the seizure of the material, he should be released on bail.

The Public Prosecutor, representing the State, strongly opposed the application. The prosecution contended that the accused was a habitual drug dealer and that there was a clear prima facie case established against him. They argued that the seizure of 2 kilograms and 200 grams of ganja was a serious matter and that if released, the petitioner might abscond to his home state of Andhra Pradesh or hamper the ongoing investigation.

Judicial Observations on Intermediate Quantity

In the final ruling, the court focused heavily on the classification of the seized drug. Under the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E), the threshold for a “small quantity” of ganja is 1,000 grams (1 kilogram), while a “commercial quantity” is defined as 20 kilograms or more.

The court noted that the 2 kilograms and 200 grams seized in this case qualifies as an “intermediate quantity.” Judge B.S. Jayashree observed that when the quantity involved is less than commercial, the rigorous restrictions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which generally make bail extremely difficult to obtain, do not apply. In such instances, the standard principles of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are followed.

The court cited the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Birbal Prasad vs. State of Bihar, where it was held that in cases involving non-commercial quantities where the accused has no prior record, bail should generally be granted pending trial.

Terms and Conditions of the Bail Order

The court concluded that further custodial interrogation was not warranted as the voluntary statement of the accused had been recorded and the incriminatory articles were already in police possession. However, to ensure the petitioner’s presence during the trial, the court imposed several strict conditions:

1. The petitioner must execute a personal bond for 1,00,000 rupees with two sureties for the like sum.
2. He is required to mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer once a month, specifically on the first Monday, until the charge sheet is filed.
3. He is strictly prohibited from leaving the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
4. He must not tamper with any prosecution witnesses or attempt to abscond.
5. He must cooperate fully with the Investigating Officer for the remainder of the investigation.
6. He is prohibited from committing any similar offences while out on bail.
7. He must provide photo identification and proof of his local and permanent addresses, as well as identification for his sureties.
8. He must appear before the court on every hearing date without fail.

The order explicitly states that any breach of these conditions will result in the immediate cancellation of the bail. With this ruling, the court balanced the need for public safety with the legal rights of the accused regarding non-commercial quantities of prohibited substances.