Bengaluru, August 23, 2022 – The XXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, has granted regular bail to Ganesh S, aged 21, in a case involving the seizure of ganja (cannabis) under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The key factor in the decision was the classification of the seized quantity as intermediate, which mitigates the strict conditions usually imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The petitioner, Ganesh S (Accused No. J.C.), sought relief under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in Crime No. 241/2022 registered at the Rajagopalanagara Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act.
The Allegation and Seizure Details
The case originated from a raid conducted by the Police Inspector (PI) of Rajagopalnagar PS. According to the prosecution’s case, on July 21, 2022, at around 3:30 PM, the complainant received credible information that a person was selling ganja at a vacant place near Konega Garments, Kareemsab Layout.
After obtaining permission from the ACP, the raiding team, along with staff and panchas (witnesses), proceeded to the spot. They apprehended the suspected person, identified as the petitioner, Ganesh S. Upon a personal search, the police allegedly found and seized 1 Kilogram and 60 grams (1.060 Kgs) of ganja. A detailed panchanama was drawn, leading to the registration of the case against the accused.
Petitioner’s Defense and Prosecution’s Opposition
Ganesh S, represented by his counsel Sri M.R., Advocate, maintained his innocence, claiming he was falsely implicated and was unaware of the seized drug. The defense primarily argued that the seized article did not constitute a commercial quantity and that mandatory procedural requirements under various sections of the NDPS Act (Sections 41, 42, 50, 52, and 47) were not complied with during the recovery process. The petitioner asserted he was a permanent resident and ready to comply with all bail conditions.
The prosecution, opposing the plea, emphasized the gravity of the offence, stating that 1 Kg. 60 grams of ganja was seized. The Public Prosecutor argued that the offence is punishable with rigorous imprisonment up to 20 years and that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner, warning that releasing him could lead to him continuing his drug-dealing profession, absconding, or tampering with evidence.
The Crux of the Judgment: Intermediate Quantity
The Special Judge conducted a careful analysis of the rival contentions and the case records. The defining factor in the Court’s reasoning was the precise weight of the seized substance and its legal classification under the NDPS Act.
The Court referred to the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E) dated 19.10.2001 (Sl. No. 55) which specifies the quantity thresholds for ganja .
- Small Quantity: 1,000 grams (1 Kg)
- Commercial Quantity: 20 Kilograms (20 Kgs)
Given that the seized quantity was 1 Kilogram and 60 grams (1.060 Kgs), the Court explicitly determined that this quantity falls squarely in the intermediate range—i.e., above the small quantity threshold but significantly below the commercial quantity threshold.
The Judge cited the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Birbal Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (2018 11 SCC 488), which held that where the quantity involved is non-commercial, the accused should be considered for bail, pending trial.
The Court held: “The said case law aptly applies to the case on hand in holding that the contraband seized in the case on hand is intermediate quantity and it is not commercial quantity… 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 petitions under regular statues normal, unless the prosecution points towards exceptional circumstances.”
Since the stringent limitations on granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were rendered inapplicable, the Court treated the petition under the normal framework of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Bail Granted with Strict Conditions
The Court noted that the major portion of the investigation had concluded, the incriminating article was already seized, and further custodial interrogation was not warranted. The petitioner’s permanent residence was acknowledged, and the apprehension of the prosecution regarding absconding was deemed compensatable by imposing stringent conditions.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition, enlarging Ganesh S on bail upon executing 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:
- 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 charge sheet is filed.
- Jurisdiction Restriction: He shall not leave the court’s jurisdiction without prior permission.
- No Tampering: He shall not tamper with the witnesses or abscond.
- Cooperation: He shall cooperate with the I.O. for the investigation.
- No Repeat Offense: He shall not commit a similar offence or any offence while on bail.
- Proof Submission: He shall furnish his photo ID proof and the photo ID proofs of his sureties.
- Court Appearance: He shall appear before the court on all hearing dates.
- Cancellation Clause: Breach of any of these conditions would entail the cancellation of bail.
This judgment firmly establishes the principle that the rigors of Section 37 are automatically lifted when the seized quantity falls within the intermediate range, allowing the Court to apply regular bail jurisprudence.