In a noteworthy judicial order delivered by the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS cases at Bengaluru, the court granted anticipatory bail to Mohammed Siddiq (Accused No. 5) under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The case, registered under Crime No. 227/2022 at HAL Police Station, involves allegations under Sections 20(B) and 27(B) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The order underscores critical parameters regarding the grant of pre-arrest bail when an accused is implicated solely based on co-accused voluntary statements and where the seized contraband falls into an intermediate quantity threshold.

Background of the Case

The criminal law was set in motion on August 21, 2022, when the Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) of HAL Police Station received credible information at around 3:00 PM. The tip indicated that certain individuals were selling prohibited contraband from a motorcycle in a public area near the Islampura playground, Bengaluru.

After informing superiors and obtaining permission, the complainant officer, along with police staff and independent witnesses (panchas), raided the location. They apprehended three suspects (Accused Nos. 1 to 3). A personal search resulted in the recovery and seizure of 1 kilogram and 10 grams of ganja under a detailed spot seizure panchanama. The apprehended individuals were subjected to medical examination, confirming drug consumption.

Based on the voluntary statements recorded from Accused Nos. 1 to 3, the police alleged that Mohammed Siddiq (Accused No. 5) and another co-accused (Accused No. 4) had absconded from the scene and were involved in the illicit trade. Apprehending imminent arrest by the investigating agency, Mohammed Siddiq approached the court seeking anticipatory bail.

Contentions of the Petitioner

Represented by advocate Sri JVS, the petitioner sought pre-arrest protection on the following grounds:

• Absence from FIR and Lack of Nexus: The petitioner’s name was not originally mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR), and he shared no nexus with the other co-accused.
• False Implication Based on Statements: He was implicated purely on the basis of uncorroborated voluntary statements of co-accused without independent supporting material.
• Prior Seizure and Bail Granted to Co-Accused: The entire incriminatory drug (1.01 kg ganja) had already been seized from Accused Nos. 1 to 3, who had already been granted regular bail.
• Non-Commercial Quantity: The total drug recovered (1.01 kg) did not constitute a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act framework.
• Deep Roots in Society: The petitioner, a 34-year-old resident of Islampura, Bengaluru, had deep roots in society and expressed willingness to abide by all stringent conditions.

Objections by the Prosecution

The prosecution, represented by the Public Prosecutor, strongly opposed the anticipatory bail application:

• Contraband Recovery: Police seized 1.01 kg of ganja following proper procedure and personal search.
• Allegations of Drug Dealing: The prosecution claimed that the petitioner was a habitual drug dealer who fled from the spot during the raid.
• Risk to Investigation: The prosecution contended that granting pre-arrest protection would lead to the petitioner absconding, tampering with evidence, or frustrating the ongoing investigation.

Judicial Findings and Legal Analysis

The presiding judge, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, evaluated the prosecution records and framed the central question: whether sufficient grounds existed to grant anticipatory bail to Accused No. 5.

Classification of Contraband Quantity

As per Ministry of Finance Notification S.O.1055(E) dated October 19, 2001 (Sl. No. 55):

• Small Quantity for Ganja: Up to 1,000 grams (1 kg).
• Commercial Quantity for Ganja: 20 kilograms or more.

The court noted that the total recovery of 1 kg 10 grams of ganja was slightly above the small quantity limit, placing it firmly in the intermediate quantity bracket. Because the seized quantity was below the commercial threshold of 20 kg, the stringent statutory restrictions on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply.

Lack of Independent Prima Facie Material

Judge B.S. Jayashree observed that the investigating agency failed to place any concrete material on record demonstrating that Mohammed Siddiq was engaged in drug trafficking or physically present at the scene at the time of apprehension. Implication based solely on co-accused disclosures without corroborative evidence does not justify custodial interrogation, especially when:

1. The incriminatory contraband was already completely seized from Accused Nos. 1 to 3.
2. The alleged offences under Sections 20(B) and 27(B) do not carry life imprisonment or the death penalty.
3. The petitioner is a permanent resident whose presence at trial can be secured through appropriate conditions.

Final Order and Pre-Arrest Bail Conditions

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, the court allowed Crl.Misc.No.10581/2022 on November 7, 2022, directing the HAL Police to release Mohammed Siddiq on bail in the event of his arrest.

Key Conditions Imposed:

1. Bond Execution: Execution of a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum.
2. No Inducement or Interference: The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
3. Police Station Attendance: Reporting to the Investigating Officer on the first Sunday of every month between 10:00 AM and 5:00 PM until the charge sheet is filed or further orders are issued.
4. Jurisdictional Restrictions: Attending court on all hearing dates and not leaving the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
5. Non-Tampering: Refraining from threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses in any manner.
6. No Re-offending: Refraining from committing similar or any other offences while on bail.
7. Identity Verification: Furnishing photo ID proof and local address proof documents for himself and his sureties.

The court explicitly noted that any breach of these conditions would entail immediate cancellation of the anticipatory bail.