The offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is bailable, and courts must adhere to statutory provisions over headnotes.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner/accused No.1 is before this Court calling in question a remand order dated 13-01-2026 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Mysuru in Crime No.9/2026 registered for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).

2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

It is alleged that while the respondent No.2 was on patrolling duty, the petitioner who was working at a petty shop, on seeing the respondent No.2 started behaving suspiciously and tried to run away. Upon being apprehended, 53 grams of ganja comes to be seized from the possession of the petitioner. A report is prepared in the presence of the panchas and is submitted to the Respondent No.1. On the basis of this report, a crime comes to be registered against the petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(A) of the Act. The petitioner is then produced before the concerned Court. The concerned Court by its order dated 13-01-2026 remands the petitioner to judicial custody. It is this order which is challenged by the petitioner in the subject petition.

3. Heard Sri R.K. Mahadeva, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only 53 grams of ganja was seized from the possession petitioner which is a small quantity under the Act. Section 20 (b)(ii)(A) of the Act which deals with offences involving small quantities of cannabis is punishable with imprisonment of one year or with a fine and is bailable in nature. Section 37 of the Act states that only offences involving commercial quantities of contraband are non-bailable. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner should not have been remanded to judicial custody and instead should be released on bail.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondents, would contend that the petitioner was previously convicted for a similar offence under the Act, where he pleaded guilty and it was settled before the Lok Adalat. The petitioner cannot be released on bail because Section 37 of the Act, states that offences under the Act are cognizable and non-bailable. He further submits that if the petitioner is to be released on bail, stringent conditions must be imposed on him.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The only issue that merits consideration before this Court is whether the petitioner can be released on bail for the offence of possessing a small quantity of ganja as provided under Section 20 (b)(ii)(A) of the Act, despite the rigours provided under Section 37 of the Act. This issue need not detain this court for too long nor delve deep into the matter.

8. The High Court of Kerala in the case of MATHEW v. STATE OF KERALA , 2008 SCC OnLine Ker 53, holds as follows:

"…… …… ……

5. A look as the law first. Section 20 (b)(ii)(A) reads as follows:

20. Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis - Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder:—

(a) cultivates any cannabis plant; or

(b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter- State, exports inter- State or used cannabis, shall be punishable,-

(i) where such contravention