Bengaluru, India — In an order passed by the XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS) in Bengaluru, Bibhash Kumar Shas, who is Accused No. 1 in a case involving the alleged possession of ganja (cannabis), has been granted regular bail. The order, delivered on August 23, 2023, by Judge Sri. G. Raghavendra, allows Shas to be released in Spl.C. No. 43/2023 (Crime No. 127/2022) registered by the Hebbala Police Station for offences under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

This decision comes as the second instance of the accused being granted bail in the same case, following an earlier bail order, though the subsequent failure of Shas to appear in court led to the execution of a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW). The court, recognizing the quantity of the seized substance and the previous grant of bail, decided to exercise its discretion under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., subject to a monetary penalty for the lapse in court attendance.

Details of the Case and Seizure

The case originates from an incident reported on July 23, 2022, where the Police Sub-Inspector of the Hebbala police station, Sri. Madhu C.A. (CW.1), conducted a seizure mahazar between 4:00 PM and 5:30 PM on a footpath near BBMP Park, Amarajyothi Layout. The prosecution alleges that Bibhash Kumar Shas (Accused No. 1) and Accused No. 2 were found in possession of 3 kilograms and 130 grams of ganja.

The investigation has concluded, and the charge-sheet has already been submitted against both accused under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act.

Intermediate Quantity and Bail Provisions

A crucial factor in the court’s decision was the classification of the seized substance quantity under the NDPS Act. The court referred to the Central Government’s specification (SO 1055 (E), dated 19.10.2021) which defines the quantities for ganja as follows:

• Small Quantity: 1,000 grams (1 kg)
• Commercial Quantity: 20 kilograms (20 kg)

Since the recovered quantity of 3 kg 130 grams falls between the small and commercial quantity thresholds, it is classified as an intermediate quantity. Cases involving intermediate quantities do not automatically attract the stringent restrictions on bail as mandated by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which primarily applies to offences involving commercial quantity.

The Issue of Previous Default and Re-Arrest

The court record shows that Bibhash Kumar Shas and Accused No. 2 were initially enlarged on regular bail by the XXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc. No. 7409/2022 on August 1, 2022. The condition was the execution of a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- each with one surety.

However, the subsequent order sheet of the current case (Spl.C. No. 43/2023) revealed that Shas was absent on a hearing date, leading to the issuance of an NBW on July 27, 2023. He was subsequently produced before the court on August 7, 2023, following the execution of the warrant. The petitioner’s counsel explained the absence was due to the accused being out of station in his native place.

Acknowledging that the NBW had been executed, the court deemed the previously executed personal bond and surety bonds to have become “infructuous.” Given that the accused was now in custody due to the default and not the merits of the original case, the court concluded that re-granting bail was proper.

Conditions and Penalty Imposed

The court exercised its powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to allow the bail, but in a measure to penalize the non-compliance with the previous court appearance, it imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) on the petitioner.

The fresh bail order stipulates that Bibhash Kumar Shas is enlarged on bail upon the payment of the penalty and the execution of a fresh personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- along with one surety for the like sum. The court specifically mandated that the surety must be “different from the earlier surety” to ensure compliance and accountability.

The bail conditions include standard undertakings:

1. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or induce any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
2. The petitioner shall cooperate with the Investigation Officer (I.O).
3. The petitioner shall regularly appear before the court.
4. The petitioner shall not commit any offences similar to the accused offence or any other offences.
5. Breach of any of the conditions would entail the cancellation of bail.

The judgment ensures that while the accused is allowed to remain free pending trial, his compliance with judicial proceedings is strictly monitored, reflecting a balance between the right to liberty and the requirements of the judicial process.