Bengaluru, India — The XXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS) in Bengaluru, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, has granted regular bail to Glen Stains K (Accused No. 1) in a case involving the seizure of both MDMA (Ecstasy) and ganja (cannabis). The order, Crl.Misc. No. 8448/2022, was pronounced on September 3, 2022, allowing the petitioner, S/o Joseph K J, aged 47, to be released from judicial custody.

The petitioner was arrested in connection with Cr. No. 96/2022 registered by the Vijayanagar Police Station for offenses punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b), and 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The prosecution had strongly opposed the bail plea, citing the seizure of two different narcotic substances and claiming the accused was a “habitual drug dealer.”

Key Seizures and Intermediate Quantity Analysis

The core of the prosecution’s case rests on a raid conducted on August 19, 2022, near the Vijayanagar club road, following an informer’s tip. The police allegedly apprehended the accused and others, seizing dual contraband items from their possession.

The specific quantities seized were:

1. MDMA: 5 grams
2. Ganja: 3 kilograms, 750 grams (3750 grams)

The court’s decision was heavily influenced by the legal classification of these quantities under the NDPS Act, which determines the applicability of the rigorous bail restrictions under Section 37. The court analyzed both substances separately using the Central Government’s Notification S.O.1055(E) dated October 19, 2001:

• Ganja Analysis:
  • Small Quantity: 1,000 grams (1 kg)
  • Commercial Quantity: 20 kilograms (20 kgs)
  • Seized Quantity (3750 grams): Classified as an Intermediate Quantity.
• MDMA Analysis (Sl. No. 134):
  • Small Quantity: 0.5 grams
  • Commercial Quantity: 10 grams
  • Seized Quantity (5 grams): Classified as an Intermediate Quantity.

The court definitively concluded that since both the ganja and the MDMA seized were classified as intermediate quantities, the stringent requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not attracted.

Precedent and Judicial Discretion

In making its ruling, the court relied on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Birbal Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (2018 11 SCC 488). This judgment supports the principle that when the quantity involved is a non-commercial quantity, the accused should generally be considered for bail, provided there are no other exceptional circumstances. The court found that this principle “aptly applies to the case on hand.”

The petitioner, Glen Stains K, had argued that he was falsely implicated, the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act (Sections 41, 42, 50, 52, and 47) were not complied with, and he was the sole bread-earner for his family.

The prosecution’s objection that the offense is punishable with rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years and that the accused might abscond or tamper with witnesses was addressed by the court by noting that the “major portion of investigation in the case is concluded as the incriminatory article is already seized.” The judge determined that further custodial interrogation was “not warranted” and that the prosecution’s apprehension could be compensated by imposing stringent conditions.

Conditions Imposed for Bail

The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with two sureties for the like sum.

The bail is subject to eight mandatory conditions to ensure the petitioner’s cooperation and prevent future offenses:

1. The petitioner shall give attendance before the concerned Investigating Officer (I.O.) once in a month, preferably on the first Monday of every month between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM, until the charge sheet is filed or further orders are issued.
2. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
3. He shall not tamper the witness or abscond.
4. He shall co-operate with the I.O for investigation.
5. He shall not commit similar offence or any offence while on bail.
6. He shall furnish his photo ID proof and local address proof document, along with the photo ID proof of his sureties.
7. He shall appear before the court on all hearing dates.
8. Breach of any of the conditions would entail the automatic cancellation of bail.

The ruling provides provisional relief to the accused while strongly emphasizing judicial compliance and adherence to the law, underscoring the legal distinction between commercial and intermediate quantities in NDPS cases.