In a notable judicial order delivered by the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS cases at Bengaluru, the court allowed the bail application filed by Harish @ Guddebadu in connection with a drug possession case registered by the Avalahalli Police Station. The order highlights important legal principles regarding the classification of contraband quantities under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, and the non-applicability of stringent statutory bars under Section 37 of the Act for non-commercial quantities.

Background of the Case

The case originated on June 21, 2022, when the Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) of Avalahalli Police Station received credible information at around 11:15 AM. The information indicated that an individual named Harish @ Guddebadu had stored ganja in his house located at Biddarahalli Village & Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk.

After informing higher officers and securing permission to conduct a raid, the police team, accompanied by independent witnesses (panchas), proceeded to the spot. Upon reaching the premises, they apprehended the suspect standing in front of the house. On inquiry, he revealed his identity and admitted to storing ganja inside his residence. A search of the premises yielded 1 kilogram and 100 grams of ganja, which was seized under a spot seizure panchanama.

Following the seizure, a detailed report was submitted to the Station House Officer (SHO), leading to the registration of Crime No. 237/2022 under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. The petitioner was subsequently arrested, produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, and remanded to judicial custody.

Contentions of the Petitioner

Represented by his advocate, Sri A.R.V., Harish @ Guddebadu filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The grounds raised in support of the bail plea included:

• Innocence and False Implication: The petitioner asserted that he was innocent, a law-abiding citizen, and had been falsely implicated at the instance of extraneous elements.
• Non-Compliance with Statutory Provisions: It was contended that mandatory statutory safeguards under Sections 41, 42, 50, 52, and 47 of the NDPS Act were not complied with during the raid and seizure.
• Quantity Classification: The defense argued that the seized quantity of 1.1 kg of ganja did not constitute a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.
• No Prior Antecedents: The petitioner stated that he had no bad antecedents and was the sole bread earner of his family.
• Cooperation and Permanent Residence: Being a permanent resident at the address provided in the cause title, he expressed full readiness to furnish sureties and abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

Objections by the Prosecution

The prosecution, represented by the Public Prosecutor, strongly opposed the bail petition on the following grounds:

• Seizure and Possession: A total of 1.1 kg of ganja was seized from the residence and possession of the accused following a detailed personal search and spot mahazar.
• Severity of the Offence: The offence carries a punishment of rigorous imprisonment extending up to 10 years along with a fine.
• Risk of Absconding: The prosecution expressed apprehension that if released on bail, the petitioner might abscond, hamper the ongoing investigation, or repeat similar criminal activities as an alleged habitual drug dealer.

Legal Analysis and Findings of the Court

The presiding judge, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, evaluated the material on record and focused on the core legal issue: whether the quantity of contraband seized attracted the strict restrictions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Classification of Contraband Quantity

As per Notification S.O.1055(E) dated October 19, 2001, issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue):

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

In the present case, the seized quantity of 1 kg 100 grams fell between the small and commercial thresholds, categorizing it as an intermediate quantity.

Applicability of Precedents and Section 37 NDPS Act

The court placed reliance on the landmark Supreme Court decision in Birbal Prasad v. State of Bihar (2018 11 SCC 488), where the Apex Court granted bail to an accused found in possession of 14 kg of ganja (a non-commercial quantity), noting the absence of prior involvement in other cases.

Applying this judicial precedent, the court observed:

1. When the quantity involved is less than commercial quantity, the strict rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act—which impose stringent restrictions on granting bail—do not apply.
2. The consideration for bail reverts to regular statutory principles governing non-commercial offences under the Cr.P.C., unless exceptional adverse circumstances are demonstrated by the prosecution.
3. The major portion of the investigation was concluded since the incriminatory article had already been seized, and the petitioner’s voluntary statement was recorded.
4. The alleged offence does not carry a penalty of death or life imprisonment, making further custodial interrogation unnecessary.

Final Order and Conditions Imposed

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, the court allowed Crl.Misc.No.6726/2022 on July 14, 2022, ordering the release of Harish @ Guddebadu on bail subject to the following terms:

1. Bail Bond: The petitioner must execute a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum.
2. Police Attendance: He must report before the Investigating Officer once a month, preferably on the first Monday between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM, until the filing of the charge sheet or further orders.
3. Jurisdiction Restrictions: He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
4. Non-Interference: He must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or abscond.
5. Investigation Cooperation: He must cooperate fully with the Investigating Officer.
6. Prevention of Recidivism: He shall not commit similar offences or any other crime while on bail.
7. Identity Verification: He must submit photo ID proof and local address proof for himself and his sureties.
8. Court Appearance: He must appear before the court on all scheduled hearing dates.

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