In a significant 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 Putan @ Sathya (Accused No. 2) and Ravi (Accused No. 3). The case, registered by the Upparpet Police Station under Crime No. 36/2022, involves offences punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The order clarifies crucial legal distinction regarding individual recovery, voluntary disclosures, and the applicability of Section 37 bail restrictions when commercial quantities are seized from a principal co-accused but intermediate quantities are recovered from secondary accused.

Background of the Case

The criminal law was set in motion on February 7, 2022, when the Circle Inspector of Police (CPI), Upparpet Police Station, received credible information at around 2:00 PM regarding drug sales taking place opposite Raffles Park, Soukya Road, Samethanahalli Village, Hosakote Taluk.

After obtaining necessary permissions from higher officers, the police team conducted a raid and apprehended Accused No. 1. A search of the bag carried by Accused No. 1 yielded 23 kilograms and 320 grams of ganja. Subsequent to his apprehension and voluntary disclosure statement, the investigating agency arrested Putan @ Sathya and Ravi (Accused Nos. 2 and 3).

From the direct, conscious possession of Accused Nos. 2 and 3, police recovered 1 kilogram and 820 grams of ganja. While investigating further voluntary statements, police conducted a raid on December 5, 2022, at the residence of one Ananda in Vijayanagar, Bengaluru, recovering 186 kg of ganja, which was alleged to have been sold by Accused Nos. 2 and 3 a month prior. Following the conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted to the court.

Contentions of the Petitioners

Represented by advocate Sri M. Krishne Gowda, the petitioners filed a regular bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) urging the following grounds:

• Innocence and False Implication: The petitioners submitted that they were innocent, law-abiding citizens falsely implicated based solely on the uncorroborated voluntary statement of Accused No. 1.
• Quantity Recovered: The defense pointed out that the actual physical quantity recovered directly from Accused Nos. 2 and 3 was 1.82 kg of ganja, which constitutes an intermediate quantity and not a commercial quantity.
• Unsubstantiated Allegations: Regarding the separate recovery of 186 kg from co-accused Ananda, the defense argued that the prosecution failed to collect documentary or evidentiary proof regarding the transport or monetary transactions linking the petitioners to that recovery.
• Completion of Investigation: Charge sheet had already been filed, making further custodial detention unwarranted.
• Willingness to Abide by Conditions: Being permanent residents with deep roots in society, the petitioners offered to furnish reliable sureties and abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

Prosecution’s Objections

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

• Commercial Quantity Involvement: The prosecution argued that the overall conspiracy involved commercial quantities, noting the initial recovery of 23.32 kg from Accused No. 1 and 186 kg from co-accused Ananda.
• Severity of Offence: Offences involving commercial quantities carry rigorous imprisonment for a term ranging between 10 to 20 years along with a mandatory fine.
• Risk of Re-offending and Flight: Alleging that the petitioners were active links in a drug distribution network, the prosecution expressed apprehension that if released, they would abscond or re-engage in illicit drug trade.

Judicial Findings and Legal Analysis

The presiding judge, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, thoroughly analyzed the prosecution records, charge sheet materials, and statutory provisions to evaluate whether the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied to the petitioners.

Classification of Contraband Quantity and Individual Recovery

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 made crucial factual distinctions:

1. While Accused No. 1 was found in conscious possession of 23.32 kg of ganja (commercial quantity), the contraband recovered directly from the conscious possession of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 was 1 kg 820 grams, which is an intermediate quantity.
2. Regarding the 186 kg recovered from Ananda’s residence, the investigating agency failed at this stage to collect transactional, transport, or corroborative documentary evidence establishing a direct link to the petitioners.
3. Therefore, the independent quantum attributable to the petitioners remains 1.82 kg of ganja.

Non-Applicability of Section 37 Rigors

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

1. When the quantity of contraband directly seized from an accused is less than commercial quantity, the strict rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply.
2. Considerations for bail revert to regular statutory principles governing non-commercial offences under the Cr.P.C.
3. The investigation in the case was complete, the charge sheet was filed, and incriminatory articles were already in police custody.
4. The alleged offence against these petitioners is not punishable with death or life imprisonment, making further custodial interrogation unnecessary.
5. Apprehensions regarding flight risk or trial delay can be effectively mitigated through stringent bail conditions.

Final Order and Terms of Bail

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, the court allowed Crl.Misc.No.11958/2022 on December 20, 2022, granting regular bail to Putan @ Sathya and Ravi.

Key Conditions Imposed:

1. Bail Bond: Each petitioner must execute a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum.
2. Jurisdictional Restrictions: They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
3. Non-Interference: They shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses or abscond.
4. No Re-Offending: They shall not commit similar offences or any crime while on bail.
5. Identity Verification: They must furnish photo ID proof and local address proof documents for themselves and their sureties before the court.
6. Court Appearance: They must appear before the court on all scheduled hearing dates without fail.

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