In a significant ruling concerning the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the Special Court in Bengaluru has granted regular bail to Karthik alias Kabali, who was accused of supplying narcotics to street-level dealers. Smt. B.S. Jayashree, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS, delivered the order on December 12, 2022, emphasizing that the absence of direct evidence and the non-commercial quantity of the seized contraband were pivotal factors in the decision.

The petitioner, 30-year-old Karthik alias Kabali, a resident of Gayathrinagar, was seeking release under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Crime No. 33/2020 registered by the Sheshadripuram Police Station.

Case Background and Police Raid

The case dates back to March 18, 2020, when the Sheshadripuram Police received credible information regarding the sale of narcotics near the BBMP ground and Seshadripuram swimming pool. Acting on this tip, the police conducted a raid and apprehended two individuals, Deepak V.K. and Sunilkumar, who were traveling on a Honda Activa scooter.

During the search, the police recovered a bag containing 6 Kgs and 500 grams of Ganja. Upon interrogation, the apprehended duo allegedly confessed that they had purchased the illicit substance from the petitioner, Karthik alias Kabali, and others, intending to sell it to customers at a higher price. Based on these voluntary statements, Karthik was implicated as Accused No. 5 in the case.

Arguments for and Against Bail

Advocate Sri Manjunath H.S., appearing for Karthik, argued that his client was completely innocent and had been falsely implicated based solely on the statements of other accused persons. He highlighted that no contraband was actually seized from the physical possession of the petitioner. Furthermore, the defense pointed out that the quantity of Ganja seized (6.5 Kgs) fell well below the “commercial quantity” threshold defined by the law. The defense also alleged non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements of Sections 41, 42, and 50 of the NDPS Act.

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail plea, labeling Karthik a “habitual drug dealer.” The prosecution argued that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner and expressed fears that he might abscond or continue his criminal activities if released.

Judicial Reasoning: Intermediate Quantity and Section 37 Rigors

The court’s analysis centered on the classification of the seized substance. Under the Ministry of Finance Notification, 1,000 grams of Ganja is considered a “small quantity,” while 20 Kgs or more is categorized as a “commercial quantity.”

The court noted that the 6.5 Kgs of Ganja in this case constitutes an “intermediate quantity.” This distinction is legally crucial because the stringent “rigors of Section 37” of the NDPS Act—which make bail extremely difficult to obtain—apply primarily to commercial quantities. The Judge cited the Supreme Court decision in Birbal Prasad vs. State of Bihar, which established that for non-commercial quantities, bail should be considered more favorably if the accused is not involved in other cases.

Furthermore, the court observed a significant lack of corroborative evidence against Karthik. While the co-accused claimed to have bought the drugs from him, the investigating agency failed to provide details regarding the date of supply, the source of the procurement, or any financial records showing the transfer of money.

“The allegation against the present petitioner is that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had purchased ganja from him, but the details of purchase… is not collected by the investigating agency,” the Judge noted.

Final Order and Conditions

The court concluded that further custodial interrogation was not warranted as the final report (charge sheet) had already been filed. Consequently, Karthik was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety of the like sum.

To ensure his presence during the trial, the court imposed several strict conditions:

• The petitioner must not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
• He is strictly prohibited from tampering with witnesses or committing similar offences.
• He must furnish photo ID and address proof for himself and his sureties.
• He must appear before the court on all scheduled hearing dates.

The court warned that any breach of these conditions would lead to the immediate cancellation of the bail. This ruling underscores the judicial principle that while drug offences are heinous, the lack of direct recovery and the specific quantity of the drug are essential factors in determining the necessity of pre-trial detention.