The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances in Bengaluru has granted bail to two women, Sumithra and Seetha, who were arrested in connection with the seizure of hashish oil and ganja. The decision, delivered by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS, centered on the classification of the seized narcotics as an intermediate quantity rather than a commercial one.
The legal proceedings, registered under Criminal Miscellaneous No. 7264/2022, pertain to a raid conducted by the City Crime Branch in Rajajinagar. The petitioners were booked under several sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, including Section 8(c) which prohibits the production, manufacture, possession, sale, or purchase of narcotic drugs, Section 20(ii)(B) which deals with cannabis in quantities greater than small but less than commercial, and Section 21(B) relating to psychotropic substances in intermediate quantities.
Background of the City Crime Branch Raid
The case against the petitioners was set in motion on July 16, 2022, following a report by the Police Inspector of the City Crime Branch (CCB), Bengaluru (West and North). According to the prosecution, the complainant received credible intelligence on the night of July 15 regarding the illicit storage of narcotics at a residence in Gopalpura, Rajajinagar.
After obtaining the necessary permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police (CCB), the police conducted a raid on the house of the first petitioner, Sumithra. During the search, the second petitioner, Seetha, was also found present on the premises. The search reportedly yielded 940 grams of hashish oil and 10 kilograms of ganja. The police drew a detailed mahazar (seizure memo) on the spot and arrested the individuals present. Subsequently, the Magadi Road Police Station registered a formal case under Crime No. 140/2022.
Defense Arguments and the Question of Compliance
The petitioners, represented by Advocate Sri P.R. Bhat, argued that they were absolutely innocent and had been falsely implicated in a concocted story. A primary pillar of their defense was the alleged non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Specifically, the defense pointed to Sections 42, 50, 52, 55, and 57, which govern the methods of entry, search, seizure, and the subsequent reporting procedures that law enforcement must strictly follow.
The defense further contended that the women were no longer required for custodial interrogation as the investigation was largely complete. They highlighted that both Sumithra and Seetha are permanent residents of Bengaluru with no prior criminal record, hailing from respectable families. They expressed a full willingness to abide by any court-imposed conditions to secure their liberty.
Prosecution’s Objection and the Quantity Debate
The prosecution strongly opposed the bail plea, emphasizing the volume of the seized substances. They argued that the recovery of nearly a kilogram of hashish oil and 10 kilograms of ganja established a prima facie case of drug dealing. The State expressed concern that if released on bail, the accused might abscond or attempt to hamper the ongoing investigation, given the severity of the potential punishment which can extend to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.
To resolve the dispute, the court looked at the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E). According to the official specifications:
For Hashish Oil (Sl. No. 23), 100 grams is a small quantity and 1 kilogram is a commercial quantity.
For Ganja (Sl. No. 55), 1,000 grams is a small quantity and 20 kilograms is a commercial quantity.
The court observed that the 940 grams of hashish oil and 10 kilograms of ganja seized from the petitioners fell below the commercial thresholds. Consequently, the court classified the seizure as an “intermediate quantity.”
Judicial Reasoning and Final Order
The court relied on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Birbal Prasad vs. State of Bihar (2018). The court noted that when the quantity involved is less than commercial, the stringent rigors of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985—which makes bail nearly impossible for commercial quantities—do not apply. Instead, the court evaluates the bail petition under regular standards similar to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Judge B.S. Jayashree observed that the major portion of the investigation was concluded since the incriminatory articles had already been seized. Since the offences are not punishable by death or life imprisonment and the petitioners have fixed places of residence, the court deemed them fit for release on bail.
The court allowed the petition, ordering the release of Sumithra and Seetha on a personal bond of 1,00,000 rupees each, along with two sureties. The bail is subject to eight strict conditions, including mandatory monthly attendance before the Investigating Officer, a prohibition on leaving the jurisdiction without permission, and a strict warning against tampering with witnesses or committing similar offences. Breach of any condition will lead to the immediate cancellation of the bail.