Bengaluru, June 24, 2022: The XXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru (CCH.33), Smt. B.S. Jayashree, has granted bail to a 20-year-old man in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The court ruled that the quantity of Ganja seized from the accused fell under the ‘small quantity’ classification, thereby lifting the stringent restrictions on bail imposed by the NDPS Act.
The petitioner, Fareed Khan, a resident of Adigarakallahalli Village, Anekal Taluk, was granted bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in connection with Crime No. 209/2022 of Attibele Police Station. The case was registered for offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act.
The Allegations and Arrest
The case was initiated based on a report from the Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) of Attibele Police Station, the complainant. According to the report, on June 4, 2022, at approximately 11:00 AM, the complainant received credible information that a person was attempting to sell Ganja packets in a plastic cover by the roadside near Balluru lake road, Anekal Taluk.
Acting on this information, the PSI, along with staff and panchas, proceeded to the spot. They apprehended the individual, identified as Fareed Khan. A personal search was conducted, resulting in the seizure of 300 grams of Ganja. Following a detailed seizure panchanama, a report was prepared, leading to the registration of the case against the petitioner.
Petitioner’s Grounds for Bail
Fareed Khan’s counsel argued that the petitioner was innocent, falsely implicated, and unaware of the seized drug. The primary argument for bail centered on the quantity of the seized Ganja, which was 300 grams. The defence asserted that this quantity was a “small quantity” and therefore the strict mandatory provisions regarding bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not applicable.
The counsel further contended that mandatory legal provisions relating to search and seizure under Sections 41, 42, 50, 52, and 57 of the NDPS Act were not complied with by the police. The petitioner claimed to have no bad antecedents, was the sole bread earner for his family, and was ready to comply with any conditions imposed by the court to secure his release.
Prosecution’s Objection
The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail petition. The prosecution confirmed that 300 grams of Ganja was seized from the petitioner, which constitutes a narcotic drug. While admitting that the seized quantity was a “small quantity,” the prosecution expressed apprehension that if released on bail, the petitioner, whom they characterized as a “habitual drug dealer,” would abscond and potentially hamper the investigation.
Judicial Analysis and the ‘Small Quantity’ Threshold
The core of the court’s reasoning focused on the classification of the seized Ganja quantity. The Special Judge referred to the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E) dated October 19, 2001, which defines the thresholds for narcotic drugs.
As per this crucial notification:
- Ganja Small Quantity: 1000 grams (1 Kg).
- Ganja Commercial Quantity: 20 Kgs.
Given that the investigating agency seized only 300 grams of Ganja from the petitioner, the court concluded that the seized contraband was well below the ‘small quantity’ threshold (1000 grams) and significantly below the ‘commercial quantity’ threshold (20 Kgs).
The court underscored the legal implication of this finding: “When the quantity is less than commercial quantity, rigors of Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act will not attract, and factors become similar to bail petition under regular statues normal.”
The court further buttressed its decision by citing the Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in Birbal Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (2018 11 SCC 488), which held that an accused should be released on bail when the quantity involved is non-commercial.
Final Verdict and Conditions
The court found that the petitioner had been in judicial custody since his arrest on June 4, 2022. It observed that the major portion of the investigation, including the seizure of the incriminating article, was concluded, and further custodial interrogation was not warranted. The judge also found no evidence to suggest the petitioner was a “habitual offender” or had previous criminal antecedents.
The court allowed the petition, concluding that the prosecution’s apprehension of the petitioner absconding could be compensated by imposing stringent conditions.
Fareed Khan was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- with one surety for the like sum, subject to the following conditions:
- He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
- He shall not tamper with the witnesses or abscond.
- He shall not commit similar or any other offence while on bail.
- He shall furnish his photo ID proof and the photo ID proof of his surety.
- Breach of any of these conditions would result in the cancellation of his bail.
The order was pronounced, securing the petitioner’s release and affirming that in cases involving small quantities of contraband, the general principles of bail jurisprudence prevail over the restrictive clauses of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.