Bengaluru, January 7, 2023 – In a significant ruling, the XXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS) in Bengaluru, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, granted bail to petitioner Bharath @ Child Bharath (Accused No. 2) in connection with a case involving a commercial quantity of the psychotropic substance MDMA and weapons possession. The bail was granted under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in Crime No. 433/2022 registered at the Rajagopalanagara Police Station, which includes charges under Section 25(1B)(B) of the Arms Act, Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, and Section 379 of the IPC (Theft).

The case, Crl. Misc. No. 12627/2022, saw the accused, a 26-year-old resident of Laggere, Bengaluru, successfully argue for his release, despite the gravity of the NDPS Act charges which carry a minimum sentence of 10 years for commercial quantity offenses.

The Case Against the Petitioner

The prosecution, represented by the Public Prosecutor, opposed the bail, stating that the Investigating Officer (I.O.) had seized 50.52 grams of MDMA from “accused Nos. 1 and 2,” and emphasized the existence of a prima facie case against the petitioner. They argued that the petitioner was a habitual drug dealer and if released on bail, he would likely continue his illicit activities, abscond, and tamper with prosecution evidence.

The prosecution’s case originated from a suo moto report filed by a Sub-Inspector (PSI) of Rajagopalanagara Police Station. The report stated that on December 11, 2022, while on patrolling duty, credible information was received about four unknown persons, including a rowdy-sheeter named Tejas @ Tiger, moving with deadly weapons near Maruthi Bar & Restaurant in Laggere. While the persons initially fled, leaving behind a long chopper, the police subsequently registered the case.

Later that same day, Tejas @ Tiger (Accused No. 1) was apprehended. During a search conducted in the presence of panchas (witnesses), the police seized 50.52 grams of MDMA from a black plastic cover he was carrying, along with a stolen bike. The accused No. 1 was arrested and, during police custody, allegedly revealed the involvement of other accused, leading to the apprehension of the present petitioner (Accused No. 2) and Accused No. 4 on December 13, 2022.

Key Grounds for Granting Bail

The petitioner, through his counsel Sri. P.R., contended that he was innocent, falsely implicated based on the statement of a co-accused, and critically, that nothing had been seized from his possession. He also argued that the mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act regarding recovery were not followed.

The Special Judge meticulously analyzed the rival contentions and the investigation records. The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the offense, confirming that 50.52 grams of MDMA is classified as a commercial quantity under the Ministry of Finance Notification S.O. 1055(E) dated 19.10.2001 (where 10 grams is the threshold for commercial quantity). This classification normally invokes the stringent restrictions on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

However, the Court highlighted a crucial point: “The said contraband [50.52 grams of MDMA] seized from the accused No. 1.” The court observed that “when the present petitioner is arrested there is no recovery of contraband or deadly weapon from him or at his instance.”

The Judge concluded that while the petitioner was alleged to have accompanied Accused No. 1 and was involved in drug peddling, there was “no incriminatory material collected by the investigating agency at the instance of present petitioner” at this stage. Furthermore, the Court noted that there were no criminal antecedents against the present petitioner.

Given that the major portion of the investigation had concluded, the main incriminatory article (the MDMA) was already seized at the instance of Accused No. 1, and the offense was not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, the Court deemed that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation was no longer necessary. The Court further noted that the apprehension of the prosecution regarding the petitioner absconding could be “compensated by imposing stringent conditions.”

Strict Conditions Imposed for Release

Answering the point of consideration in the affirmative, the Special Judge allowed the bail petition, enlarging the petitioner on the execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two sureties for the like sum, subject to the following stringent conditions:

1. Mandatory Attendance: The petitioner must appear before the concerned Investigating Officer once a month, preferably on the first Monday of every month, between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM, until the filing of the charge sheet.
2. Jurisdiction Restriction: He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
3. No Tampering/Absconding: He shall not tamper with the witnesses or abscond.
4. Cooperation: He shall cooperate with the I.O. for the investigation.
5. No Repeat Offence: He shall not commit a similar offense or any other offense while on bail.
6. ID Proof: He shall furnish his photo ID proof and the photo ID proofs of his sureties.
7. Court Appearance: He shall appear before the court on all hearing dates.
8. Breach of Conditions: Breach of any of these conditions would result in the cancellation of bail.

This judgment highlights the judiciary’s careful application of bail provisions under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the distinction between mere association with a co-accused and the direct recovery of contraband from the petitioner, which ultimately tilted the decision in favor of granting bail.