The petitioner-accused No.2 is before this Court

seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime

No.135/2022 of Madiwala Police Station, pending on the

file of 33^rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and

Special Judge (NDPS) at Bengaluru, registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 20(b), 8(c), 21(c) and

22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances

Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'), on the basis of the first

information lodged by the informant Sri. Janardhan B.S.

2.

Heard Sri. Dilrai Jude Rohit Sequeira, learned

Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. H.S.Shankar, learned

High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State.

Perused the materials on record.

3.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. He is

innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged.

He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any

- 3 -

basis. It is alleged that the commercial quantity of Ganja

and MDMA were recovered from the custody of accused

No.1 and nothing has been recovered from the possession

of the present petitioner. The investigation has been

completed and the charge sheet is filed. The petitioner is

not required to be detained in custody, his detention would

amount to pre-trial punishment. He is the permanent

resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the

petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the

conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he

prays to allow the petition.

4.

Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious

allegations are made against the petitioner for having

committed the offences. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were found

together along with a two wheeler belonging to the

present petitioner. They were in joint and conscious

possession of contra-band which is of commercial quantity.

1.300 kgs of Ganja and 20 tablets of MDMA weighing

- 4 -

11.45 grams were recovered from them under the seizure

mahazar. After investigation, the charge sheet is filed.

Since commercial quantity of contra-band is seized from

the custody of the accused, the petitioner is not entitled to

be enlarged on bail, unless he satisfies the conditions

imposed in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act. Learned

HCGP placed reliance on the decision of this Court dated

02.06.2022 in the case of ANIRUDH V.KONNUR VS. STATE

OF KARNATAKA¹. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the

petition.

5.

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would

arise for my consideration is:

<Whether the petitioner is entitled

for grant of bail under Section 439 of

Cr.P.C.?=

My answer to the above point is in 8Negative9 for the

following:

1 CRL.P NO.3344/2022

- 5 -

R E A S O N S

6.

The allegations made against the petitioner is of

serious nature. It is the contention of the prosecution that

accused Nos.1 to 3 were found together along with

contraband i.e., 1.300 kgs of Ganja and 20 tablets of

MDMA weighing 11.45 grams. The accused were found

along with a two wheeler which admittedly belongs to the

present petitioner. The contraband and two-wheeler were

seized under the seizure mahazar. After investigation, the

charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under

sections 20(b), 8(c), 21(c) and 22(c) of NDPS Act.

7. It is the specific contention of the prosecution

that accused Nos.1 to 3 were in joint and conscious

possession of commercial quantity of contraband, which

prima facie disclosed in the charge sheet filed by the

Investigating Officer. The petitioner has to pass through

the twin requirements under Section 37(1)(b) (ii) of NDPS

Act, when the commercial quantity of contraband is

involved in the case. Unless, reasonable grounds are made

- 6 -

out for believing that the accused is not guilty and that he

is not likely to commit any offences, he is not entitled for

bail. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of b