The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) in Bengaluru has granted bail to Tabrez, also known as Donu, who was arraigned as Accused Number 7 in a significant ganja peddling case. The order, delivered by Smt. B. S. Jayashree, Special Judge (NDPS), highlights key judicial principles regarding the lack of recovery from an accused and the applicability of the rigorous Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The petitioner, a 34-year-old resident of Yelahanka Taluk, had been in custody following his arrest in connection with Crime Number 81/2022 registered by the Doddaballapura Town Police Station. The case initially involved the seizure of substantial quantities of ganja from several co-accused, leading the police to allege a widespread drug trafficking network.
Case Background and Police Investigation
The criminal investigation began on July 6, 2022, when the Police Inspector of Doddaballapura Town received credible information regarding the illegal sale of narcotics near Basavabhavana Choultry on Dabaspet Road. A subsequent raid led to the apprehension of Accused Number 1, who was found in possession of 910 grams of ganja.
During custodial interrogation, Accused Number 1 revealed that the contraband was supplied by one Chandrakeerthi (Accused Number 2). As the investigation widened, the police apprehended Accused Numbers 2, 3, 4, and 5 near a railway bridge on July 12, 2022. This operation resulted in the seizure of an additional 12 kilograms of ganja. Following the recording of voluntary statements from these individuals, the police identified several others, including the petitioner Tabrez, as being involved in the trafficking ring.
The petitioner was arrested on July 17, 2022. While the prosecution alleged that Tabrez had admitted to purchasing two-kilogram batches of ganja from Accused Number 2 for resale and personal consumption, the defense argued that these statements were coerced and lacked corroborative physical evidence.
Arguments for and Against Bail
The legal counsel for the petitioner argued that Tabrez was a law-abiding citizen who had been falsely implicated based solely on the statements of co-accused. A primary pillar of the defense was that no narcotics or incriminating articles were recovered directly from the petitioner at the time of his arrest. Furthermore, the defense contended that the mandatory procedures for search and seizure under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, were not followed.
Conversely, the Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail plea, characterizing the petitioner as a habitual drug dealer. The state argued that the total quantity of ganja seized in the entire case exceeded 27 kilograms, which constitutes a commercial quantity. Under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, bail for commercial quantities is generally restricted unless the court is satisfied that the accused is not guilty. The prosecution expressed fears that if released, Tabrez would continue his illegal trade and potentially tamper with witnesses.
Judicial Observations and Findings
In its analysis, the court noted a critical distinction between the total seizure in the case and the specific allegations against the petitioner. While Accused Numbers 1 through 5 were caught with physical possession of the drugs, no contraband was seized from Tabrez.
The court observed that since the specific quantity attributed to the petitioner (based on his alleged statement) was less than the “commercial quantity” defined for ganja, the strict rigors of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, did not apply. Section 37 typically places the burden on the accused to prove they are unlikely to commit an offense while on bail, but this applies primarily to commercial quantities.
Judge B. S. Jayashree remarked that the investigation concerning the petitioner was largely complete and further custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The court also highlighted that the offense alleged was not punishable by death or life imprisonment, making it a fit case for the exercise of judicial discretion in favor of liberty.
Conditions for Release
The court allowed the petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which governs the special powers of the High Court or Court of Session regarding bail. Tabrez was ordered to be released upon executing a personal bond of 1,00,000 Rupees with two sureties of the like sum.
To ensure the integrity of the ongoing legal process, the court imposed the following stringent conditions:
- Mandatory Attendance: The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer once a month, specifically on the first Monday, until the filing of the charge sheet.
- Jurisdictional Restrictions: He is prohibited from leaving the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
- Conduct: He must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or abscond from justice.
- Cooperation: He is required to cooperate fully with the investigation as and when called upon.
- Recidivism: He must not commit any similar offenses while out on bail.
- Documentation: The petitioner must furnish valid photo identification and local address proof for himself and his sureties.
- Court Presence: He must appear before the court on all scheduled hearing dates.
The court concluded that any breach of these conditions would entitle the prosecution to move for the immediate cancellation of the bail.