Bengaluru, March 26, 2024 – In an unusual case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the XXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, granted regular bail to Donga Ram @ Doonga (Accused No. 8) in connection with the alleged supply of contraband used to falsely implicate a co-accused.

The petitioner, a 43-year-old resident of Thigalarapalya Layout, was seeking relief under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in Crime No. 37/2024 of the R R Nagar Police Station. The original case involved Section 18(b) of the NDPS Act (possession of opium) and several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including 195 (Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction), 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence), 120B (Criminal conspiracy), 212 (Harbouring offender) read with Section 34.

The Unusual Twist: Fictitious Drug Possession

The case presents a complex narrative of enmity and alleged criminal conspiracy to frame an individual, Chogaram (Accused No. 1). Initially, the CCB police raided the area near Jawaharlal Nehru Road, RR Nagar, on February 2, 2024, and seized 428 grams of opium from the dicky of a Honda Activa scooter (bearing No. KA 41 EJ 6866), leading to the arrest of Chogaram/A1.

During police custody, however, Chogaram vehemently denied knowledge of the contraband, claiming that some persons holding an old grudge against him had implanted the opium in his scooter. He urgently requested the Investigating Officer (I.O.) to check the CCTV footage near his house. This suspicion was rooted in a pre-existing case (Cr. No. 250/2023) where Chogaram’s son was allegedly kidnapped by Punaram (Accused No. 2), who is also Chogaram’s brother.

Upon checking the CCTV footage and CDR (Call Detail Record) details, the I.O.’s subsequent investigation shifted dramatically. The evidence suggested a conspiracy to frame A1, involving A2 (Punaram), A3 (Asif), A4 (Suhail), A5 (Arun Kumar), A6 (Ravi), and A7 (Babu).

Petitioner’s Role and Grounds for Bail

The petitioner, Donga Ram @ Doonga (A-8), was arrested on March 17, 2023 (as noted in the order, though likely 2024), based on the statement of other accused. His alleged role, as per the prosecution, was supplying the contraband opium to Accused No. 2 (Punaram) for the purpose of planting it in A1’s vehicle.

Donga Ram’s counsel, Sri RRS, argued that the petitioner was innocent and had no knowledge of the crime. Key defense points included:

• The petitioner’s name did not appear in the original FIR or complaint.
• Nothing was seized from his possession.
• A-1, Chogaram, had already been enlarged on bail (Crl.Misc.1419/2024), establishing a ground for parity.
• The allegation against him (supply of contraband to A2) does not make the offence punishable with death or life imprisonment.

The prosecution opposed the bail, detailing the complex conspiracy involving the use of a car with a removed number plate, UPI payment for petrol checked via PhonePe details that led to the identification of A5, and continuous phone conversations between the conspirators. They argued that Donga Ram’s voluntary statement implicated him in supplying the opium and that he might abscond or tamper with the investigation if released.

Court’s Reasoning and Release Order

The Special Judge acknowledged the extensive investigation that uncovered the conspiracy to frame A1, including the analysis of CCTV footage showing two persons getting out of a Maruti Swift car and moving near A1’s house in the early hours of February 2, 2024, to plant the opium. The investigation revealed that A5 and A6 (Ravi/the present petitioner) were the ones who physically planted the contraband as per A2’s instructions, with A5 even detailing receiving Rs. 20,000/- for the job.

However, the Court focused on the principles governing the petitioner’s release:

1. Parity and Falsity of Possession: The Court noted that the initial accused, Chogaram (A1), who was in possession of the opium, was already granted bail because the investigating agency found he was falsely implanted.
2. Completion of Investigation: The Court stated that the “material information is already collected by the investigating agency.” The petitioner was arrested, interrogated, and taken into police custody, and the “Major portion of investigation in the case is concluded.”
3. Nature of Offence: The allegation against the present petitioner is not punishable with death or life imprisonment.

The Judge concluded that further detention of Donga Ram was “not warranted in the circumstances of the case,” and that imposing stringent conditions would adequately prevent him from hampering the investigation or trial.

Conditions for Bail

The petition was allowed, and Donga Ram @ Doonga was enlarged on regular bail upon executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one surety for the like sum.

The following strict conditions were imposed:

1. Monthly Appearance: The petitioner shall appear before the concerned I.O. 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 court’s jurisdiction 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 Offense: He shall not commit a similar offense or any offense while on bail.
6. Proof Submission: He shall furnish his photo ID proof and local address proof, along with the surety’s photo ID proof.
7. Court Appearance: He shall appear before the court on all hearing dates.
8. Cancellation Clause: Breach of any conditions would lead to the cancellation of bail.

This case serves as a crucial reminder that even in stringent NDPS matters, bail can be granted when evidence strongly suggests the contraband was maliciously planted, shifting the focus of the charge from drug trafficking to criminal conspiracy and fabrication of evidence.