(Prayer: This Crl.P is filed u/S 439 Cr.PC (filed u/S 483 BNSS) praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Spl.C.No.918/2025, arising out of Crime No.242/2025, registered by Electronic City P.S, for the offences punishable u/S 8(C) and 22(C) of the NDPS Act 1985, which is pending before the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Spl.Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.)

Oral Order

1. Accused No.2 in Crime No.242/2025 registered by Soladevanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 22(C) of the NDPS Act, 1989, is before this Court in this petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. FIR in Crime No.242/2025 was registered by Soladevanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru, for the aforesaid offences against one Sumesh and the petitioner herein based on the first information dated 11.07.2025 received from Dhanush Chand, police officer attached to Soladevanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru. In the said case, accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested on 11.07.2025 and remanded to judicial custody. Bail application filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.2510/2025 was rejected on 23.12.2025. Therefore, he is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegation as against accused Nos.1 and 2 in the present case is similar. Investigation of the case is completed and charge sheet is filed. Petitioner has no other criminal antecedents. Accused No.1 has been granted regular bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.7067/2026 disposed off on 14.05.2026. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP, who has opposed the bail petition, does not dispute the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that allegation as against the petitioner and accused No.1, who has been granted regular bail in present case, is similar in the charge sheet, which is filed as against them.

6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that contraband article allegedly methamphetamine totally weighing 59 grams has been recovered from the joint possession of accused Nos.1 and 2 and was seized under a panchanama. In paragraph Nos.6 to 8 of the order passed in Crl.P.No.7067/2026, while granting regular bail to accused No.1, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as follows:-

          "6. The facts narrated above do not require reiteration. The alleged raid and seizure has taken place on 11.07.2025. The mahazar document indicate the weight of the contraband substance being 59 grams has been allegedly disclosed by the accused themselves. The inventory conducted by respondent - Police indicate quantity of the substance at the time of the inventory at '59 grams' and '8 grams' of which had been sent for testing. The document would also indicate permission of the concerned Magistrate was sought for the purpose of sending the substance for test only on 18.07.2025, which is beyond the period prescribed for sending the substance, which is 72 hours. The test report of the sample sent indicate that the article having responded positive for the Methamphetamine and negative for MDMA.

          7. The only question is with regard to the commercial quantity of the substance which according to the prosecution is weighing 59 grams, as per the table attached to the Act prescribing quantity of the substance, at Sl.No.159 commercial quantity limit of Methamphetamine substance is shown as '50 grams'. The prosecution is not clear whether the weight of the substance was excluding the plastic cover or including the plastic cover. Therefore, the benefit of the same has to be given to the accused inasmuch as if the substance is found to be less than '50 grams' would fall within the category of 'intermediatory'.

          8. In addition to the above, nothing on record to indicate compliance to the mandatory requirement of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. Further there appears to be inordinate delay in seeking permission of the Magistrate and dispatching the substance from testing."

7. It is not in dispute that petitioner has no other criminal antecedents and he was arrested along with accused No.1, who has been now granted regular bail by this Court. Under the circumstances, the following order:-

8. The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.242/2025 registered by Soladevanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 22(C) of the NDPS Act, 1989, subject to the following conditions:

          a) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two local sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

          b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

          c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

          d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future;

          e) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off.