The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail is a rule and rejection is an exception, and it should be granted after considering the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the accused, and other relevant circumstances.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition is filed under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short), seeking to enlarge the petitioners, who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2, on bail in Crime No.82/2022 of Brahmpur Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sec. 20 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act' for short), on the file of the IV Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Kalaburagi.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that FIR came to be registered on the basis of complaint lodged by one A. Wajid Patel, Police Inspector CCB Unit, Kalaburagi stating that the Investigating Officer has received credible information on 28/6/2022 that two persons were selling ganja behind Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Degree College, by side of the college compound, Kalaburagi. Accordingly, he has secured two panchas, Gazetted Officer and other police officials with weighing machine at about 02.45 p.m. they went to the spot in a Jeep and found that two persons were selling ganja. Thereafter, they raided the said persons and enquired their names. They found plastic bags on the spot and ganja weighing 1 kg, 300 gms worth of Rs.10,300.00. Thereafter, they seized the said ganja. The petitioners were arrested on 28/6/2022. The bail petitions filed by the petitioners came to be rejected by the Trial Court. Hence, the petitioners have filed this petition.

3. Heard Sri. Shivasharana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Veeranagouda Malipatil, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent " " State.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are falsely implicated in the alleged offence without any proper materials. The description of materials seized is not mention in FIR, complaint and seizure panchanama about the seized materials as to whether it is a dry ganja or plants, leaves and stems. Admittedly, the seized ganja is not commercial quantity. The petitioners are very young persons having no criminal antecedents. The petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to offer surety. The petitioners are in judicial custody since 28/6/2022. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petition.

5. Against this, the learned High Court Government Pleader argued that the petitioners are caught red-handed. The petitioners have committed heinous offence. One of the petitioners is involved in some other cases. The investigation is still going on. If the petitioners are released on bail they may threaten the prosecution witnesses and they may abscond. Hence, the learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the petition.

6. I have perused the FIR and other materials. Admittedly, the said ganja is not commercial quantity. Therefore, Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable. The report of police officials also shows that these two persons were said to have been selling ganja behind Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Degree College by the side of college compound. There is no mention about as to whom the petitioners were selling the said ganja. Whether the said ganja is leaves, fruits or stems are not forthcoming. It is stated that entire ganja of 01 kg 300 gms was seized. Admittedly, no ganja was seized from the possession of petitioners, only some amount has been seized. It is not mentioned that the petitioners were selling the said ganja to anybody. So, at this stage, the petitioners are made out grounds to enlarge them on bail.

7. It is settled principle of law that bail is a rule and rejection is an exception. While granting or rejecting the bail application, the Court will have to take into consideration,

(1) the nature and seriousness of the offence;

(2) character of the accused;

(3) circumstances which are peculiar to accused;

(4) reasonable probabilities of presence of the accused not being secured at trial;

(5) reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; and

(6) larger interest