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 Nagaraju H R (Accused No. 1). The case, registered by the Nelamangala Rural Police Station under Crime No. 113/2022, involves allegations under Section 20(b) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The ruling reinforces key legal standards regarding the classification of contraband quantities and re-confirms that intermediate quantities do not trigger the strict statutory bar on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Background of the Case

The case originated on June 22, 2022, when the Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) of Nelamangala Rural Police Station received credible information at around 11:30 AM while in the police station. The informant reported that a person riding a two-wheeler (bearing registration number KA-04-JW-3845) was engaged in selling narcotic drugs to the public at Sai Ram Layout, Islampura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk.

After informing superior officers and obtaining permission to conduct a raid, the complainant police officer proceeded to the location and spotted the suspect. The police team intercepted and apprehended him. Upon interrogation, he disclosed his identity as Nagaraju H R, aged 26, residing in Hesaraghatta Village, Bengaluru North Taluk.

A personal search yielded 5 kilograms and 600 grams of ganja. The contraband was seized under a detailed spot mahazar, and a report was prepared and submitted to the Station House Officer (SHO), leading to the registration of Crime No. 113/2022. The petitioner was formally arrested, produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, and remanded to judicial custody on June 22, 2022.

Contentions of the Petitioner

Represented by advocate Sri MDN, Nagaraju H R filed a bail petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking regular bail. The primary grounds urged included:

• Innocence and False Implication: The petitioner maintained that he was an innocent, law-abiding citizen with no knowledge of the alleged crime and had been falsely implicated at the instance of extraneous elements.
• Procedural Non-Compliance: It was contended that mandatory statutory safeguards under Section 50 as well as Sections 41, 42, 52, and 47 of the NDPS Act were not complied with during the search and recovery.
• Non-Commercial Quantity: The defense emphasized that the seized 5.6 kg of ganja fell below the statutory commercial quantity threshold.
• Personal Circumstances: The petitioner stated he had no bad antecedents and was the sole earning member of his family.
• Willingness to Comply: Being a permanent resident of Hesaraghatta Village, he expressed complete readiness to furnish reliable 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 application on the following grounds:

• Direct Seizure: The investigating agency recovered 5 kg 600 grams of ganja directly from the physical custody of the accused following a spot mahazar and search.
• Severity of Punishment: The alleged offence carries a potential punishment of rigorous imprisonment extending up to 10 years along with a fine.
• Risk of Absconding: Alleging that the petitioner was a habitual drug dealer, the prosecution argued that granting bail would risk him absconding or hampering the ongoing investigation.

Judicial Findings and Legal Analysis

The presiding judge, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, evaluated the material on record and focused on whether the contraband quantity triggered the strict bail requirements under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Classification of Ganja Quantity

As per Notification S.O.1055(E) issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) on 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 observed that the seized quantity of 5 kg 600 grams of ganja falls between 1 kg and 20 kg, placing it firmly in the intermediate quantity category.

Applicability of Precedents and Section 37 NDPS Act

The court referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Birbal Prasad v. State of Bihar (2018 11 SCC 488), applying its ratio to hold that:

1. When the quantity of contraband seized is less than commercial quantity, the strict rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply.
2. Factors governing bail revert to regular statutory considerations under the Cr.P.C. unless exceptional adverse circumstances are demonstrated.
3. The major portion of the investigation was concluded since the incriminatory material was seized and the petitioner’s voluntary statement was recorded.
4. The alleged offence does not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment, making further custodial interrogation unnecessary.
5. Prosecution fears regarding flight risk or trial delay can be adequately compensated by imposing stringent bail conditions.

Final Order and Terms of Bail

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, the court allowed Crl.Misc.No.7395/2022 on August 10, 2022, granting regular bail to Nagaraju H R.

Terms and Conditions Imposed:

1. Bail Bond: The petitioner must execute a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum.
2. Police Station 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. Jurisdictional 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 fully cooperate with the Investigating Officer during the investigation.
6. No Re-Offending: He shall not commit similar offences or any crime while on bail.
7. Identity Verification: He must furnish photo ID proof and local address proof documents 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.