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 jointly by Rithik Kumar @ Ritik Kumar (Accused No. 1) and Manu Kumar (Accused No. 2). The case, registered by the Bandepalya Police Station under Crime No. 122/2022, involves offences punishable under Section 20(B)(ii)(b) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The order confirms that intermediate contraband quantities do not trigger the strict statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, allowing standard bail principles under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to apply.

Background of the Case

The criminal proceedings commenced on July 9, 2022, when the Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) of Bandepalya Police Station received credible information at around 7:40 AM. The report indicated that two individuals were selling ganja near Puneeth Creative Garments on Hosapalya-Kodlu Road, Hosahalli, Bengaluru.

After notifying the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Electronic City Division, and obtaining permission to conduct a raid, the police team arrived at the location around 8:20 AM and apprehended the suspects. Upon questioning, the individuals identified themselves as Rithik Kumar @ Ritik Kumar (aged 22) and Manu Kumar (aged 21), both hailing from Saran (Chapra) district, Bihar.

A search of the bags in their possession resulted in the recovery and seizure of 2 kilograms and 50 grams of ganja. The contraband was seized under a detailed spot seizure panchanama, and Crime No. 122/2022 was registered. The petitioners were arrested, produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, and remanded to judicial custody.

Contentions of the Petitioners

Represented by advocate Sri B.D.R., the petitioners filed a joint bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) urging the following grounds:

• Innocence and False Implication: The petitioners asserted that they were innocent, law-abiding citizens with no knowledge of the alleged crime, claiming they were falsely implicated by the police.
• Procedural Non-Compliance: It was contended that mandatory statutory safeguards under Sections 41, 42, 50, 52, and 47 of the NDPS Act were not complied with during recovery and search operations.
• Intermediate Quantity Classification: The defense emphasized that the seized quantity of 2.05 kg of ganja fell well below the commercial threshold.
• Willingness to Comply: Being permanent residents with deep family roots, they expressed full readiness to offer sureties and abide by any conditions imposed by the court to secure their release.

Objections by the Prosecution

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

• Seizure of Contraband: The investigating agency seized 2.05 kg of ganja directly from the joint physical possession of the accused following a search and spot panchanama.
• Severity of Punishment: The alleged offence carries rigorous imprisonment for a term extending up to 10 years along with a fine.
• Risk of Flight: Alleging that the petitioners were habitual drug dealers, the prosecution argued that granting bail would risk them absconding, tampering with evidence, or resuming illicit drug sales.

Judicial Findings and Legal Analysis

The presiding judge, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, evaluated the prosecution records and centered the analysis on whether the contraband quantity triggered the strict bail restrictions 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 total recovery of 2 kg 50 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 relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Birbal Prasad v. State of Bihar (2018 11 SCC 488), where the Apex Court granted bail for possession of 14 kg of ganja (a non-commercial quantity) in the absence of prior criminal records.

Applying this legal principle, Judge B.S. Jayashree observed:

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 by the prosecution.
3. The major portion of the investigation was complete as the incriminatory contraband had already been seized and the petitioners’ voluntary statements 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.1798/2022 (Crl.Misc.No.7198/2022) on July 27, 2022, ordering the release of Rithik Kumar @ Ritik Kumar and Manu Kumar on regular bail.

Key Conditions Imposed:

1. Personal Bond: Each petitioner must execute a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum.
2. Police Station Attendance: They 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: They shall not leave the court’s jurisdiction without prior permission.
4. Non-Interference: They shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses or abscond.
5. Investigation Cooperation: They must fully cooperate with the Investigating Officer during the investigation.
6. No Re-Offending: They shall not commit similar offences or any crime while on bail.
7. Identity Verification: They must furnish photo ID proof and local address proof documents for themselves and their sureties.
8. Court Appearance: They 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.