The petitioner/Accused No.2 has filed this petition

under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking Regular Bail in Crime

No. 333/2022 of Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station,

Bengaluru District, registered for the offences punishable

under Sections 20(B) and 22(C) of the Narcotic Drug and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 8NDPS Act9),

which is pending before the Court of 10^th Additional CMM,

Mayohall, Bengaluru.

2.

As per the case of prosecution, on 02.09.2022 at

8.00 p.m., the complainant-PSI has received a credible

information that, at KR Puram Railway Station, Kasturi

Nagar, near the compound, two persons by holding plastic

covers were trying to sell contraband to the public to gain

3

money illegally. Immediately, the complainant has informed

the matter to the higher officers and obtained their

permission to conduct a raid, and thereafter, along with

associate officers he went to the spot at 8.40 p.m. and

mounted surveillance. Later on he apprehended the present

petitioner and Accused No.1 and it is found that, Accused

No.1 was carrying 12 Grams Of MDMA , while the present

petitioner/Accused No.2 was found in possession of 500

grams of Ganja, and the same was seized by drawing a

mahazar and crime came to be registered against them.

3.

The petitioner/Accused No.2 has approached the

jurisdictional Sessions Court in a petition seeking bail, but his

petition came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before

this Court.

4.

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.2 and the learned

HCGP for the respondent/State. Perused the records.

4

5.

Sri. Bharath Kumar V., learned counsel for the

petitioner would contend that, the petitioner was alleged to

have been found in possession of only 500 Grams of Ganga,

which is a small quantity, and as such, he may be granted

bail. He would also contend that there is no imputation

regarding Section 35 in the FIR.

6.

Per contra, Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, the learned

HCGP would seriously oppose the bail petition contending

that the petitioner/Accused No.2 and Accused No.1 are

brothers and they were found selling contraband to the

public and though the present petitioner was found in

possession of 500 Grams Ganja, his brother/Accused No.1

was found in possession of 12 Grams of MDMA, which is

commercial quantity. Hence, considering these aspects,

prima facie, the presumption under Section 35 is applicable

and hence, she would seek for rejection of the bail petition.

7.

After hearing the arguments and on perusing the

records, it is evident that, the petitioner/Accused No.2 was

found in possession of 500 Grams Ganja, while his

5

brother/Accused No.1 was found in possession of 12 Grams

of MDMA. However, it is important to note here that both

the petitioner/Accused No.2 and his brother/Accused No.1

were selling the Narcotic Drugs jointly. Hence, prima facie,

at this juncture the presumption under Section 35 is required

to be drawn.

8.

The matter is still at the stage of investigation

and offence is against the entire society and especially it is

directed against the younger generation and it is likely to

cause harm to the financial status of the State. Hence, such

offences cannot be taken in a lighter way. Looking to these

aspects and considering the facts and circumstances, the

petition being devoid of any merits, does not survive for

consideration and as such, it needs to be rejected.

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KGR*

CT:NR