In a significant legal development concerning the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the Special Court in Bengaluru has granted regular bail to Maneesh V Menon, a 26-year-old resident of Kerala. The court decision, delivered on March 27, 2024, by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS, underscores the critical distinction between intermediate and commercial quantities of narcotics when determining bail eligibility.

Background of the Case and Arrest

The case originated from Crime No. 22/2024 registered by the Begur Police Station. According to the prosecution’s narrative, the Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) of Begur Police Station received credible information on January 18, 2024, regarding the illegal sale of contraband near Begur Koppa Main Road and Maylsandra Junction.

Following the intelligence, a raid was conducted on January 19, 2024. During the operation, the police apprehended Maneesh V Menon. A search of his luggage allegedly led to the discovery and seizure of 7 kilograms and 295 grams of Ganja, along with a weighing machine and 28 packing covers. The prosecution alleged that the accused had procured the narcotics from Visakhapatnam at a lower price to sell them for a profit in Bengaluru. Furthermore, medical examinations conducted after the arrest reportedly confirmed that the accused had consumed the contraband.

Arguments Presented for Bail

Counsel for Maneesh V Menon argued that the petitioner was an innocent law-abiding citizen who had been falsely implicated by the respondent police. The defense highlighted that the quantity of Ganja seized—7.295 Kgs—was well below the “commercial quantity” threshold of 20 Kgs.

The defense further contended that the mandatory procedures for search and seizure under the NDPS Act were not strictly followed by the investigating agency. Emphasizing that the petitioner has a permanent residence in Kerala and no prior criminal record of a similar nature, the counsel stated that Maneesh was willing to abide by any stringent conditions imposed by the court to secure his release.

Prosecution’s Opposition

The Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail petition, citing the heinous nature of drug peddling. The state argued that the seizure of over 7 Kgs of Ganja constituted a significant threat to society, particularly the younger generation. The prosecution emphasized that the investigation was still ongoing and expressed concerns that if released, the petitioner might tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, or abscond to his home state. They maintained that the punishment for the alleged offence could extend up to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.

Judicial Analysis and the Birbal Prasad Precedent

The court’s reasoning centered on the statutory classification of the seized substance. Under the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E), 1,000 grams of Ganja is considered a “small quantity,” while 20 Kgs is considered a “commercial quantity.”

The Judge noted that the 7.295 Kgs seized from Maneesh Menon falls squarely into the “intermediate quantity” category. The court relied heavily on the Supreme Court precedent set in Birbal Prasad vs. State of Bihar (2018), which established that when the quantity involved is non-commercial and the accused has no prior record, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not strictly apply. Section 37 typically makes bail nearly impossible for commercial quantities, but for intermediate amounts, the court can exercise discretion similar to regular criminal statutes.

The court observed that since a major portion of the investigation was concluded and custodial interrogation was no longer warranted, the apprehension of the prosecution could be mitigated by imposing strict conditions rather than continued incarceration.

Terms and Conditions of the Bail Order

The court allowed the petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. Maneesh V Menon was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of the like sum. To ensure his cooperation with the law, the court imposed the following conditions:

1. The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer once a month, specifically on the first Monday, until the charge sheet is filed.
2. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
3. He is strictly prohibited from tampering with witnesses or absconding.
4. He must cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation.
5. He shall not commit any similar offences while out on bail.
6. He must furnish valid photo ID and local address proof for himself and his sureties.
7. He must attend all court hearing dates without fail.

The Judge warned that any breach of these conditions would lead to the immediate cancellation of the bail. This ruling reinforces the judicial trend of prioritizing personal liberty in cases where the evidence does not point toward large-scale commercial trafficking.