Bengaluru, January 27, 2023 — In a significant ruling underscoring the stringent bail provisions under India’s anti-narcotics law, the XXXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (NDPS) in Bengaluru today rejected the bail application of Abdul Majeed Madathum Kuzhiyil, who stands accused in a case involving the seizure of a commercial quantity of Amphetamine.
The order, issued by Judge Smt. B.S. Jayashree, dismisses the petition (Crl. Misc. No. 12391/2022) filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner, a 53-year-old resident of Doha, Qatar, and a native of Kerala, was arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) in connection with the case registered under various sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.
The Case Details: Concealed Drugs in Courier Parcel
The case traces back to an operation conducted by the NCB, Bengaluru, on April 8, 2021. Acting on a credible tip, investigators intercepted a parcel at an Aramex India Pvt. Ltd. office in Bengaluru.
- Contraband Seized: The parcel, bearing Airway Bill No. 30806899675, was found to contain 515 Grams of off-white crystalline substance concealed inside two cricket thigh guards and two elbow guards.
- Identification: A drug detection kit confirmed the substance to be Amphetamine, a Schedule I psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act.
- Commercial Quantity: The Court noted that the seized quantity of 515 grams far exceeds the notified commercial quantity threshold of 50 grams for Amphetamine. This elevates the potential minimum punishment to ten years of rigorous imprisonment, which can extend up to twenty years, along with a fine.
Petitioner’s Defense and Prosecution’s Objections
The petitioner, Abdul Majeed Madathum Kuzhiyil (Accused No. 2), argued that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated. His defense was centered on the following claims:
- He was in Qatar at the time of the alleged incident.
- The consignor (Accused No. 1, Syed Nashath) was unknown to him.
- His Qatar Residency identity card was allegedly misused by a known person, one Sri. Mansoor (a taxi driver in Doha), to book the parcel for Sri. Mansoor.
- The only evidence against him is the voluntary statement of the co-accused (A1), and no other prima facie material exists.
The prosecution, represented by the Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the bail plea, highlighting the gravity of the offense. They emphasized:
- The seizure of a commercial quantity of Amphetamine.
- The petitioner’s eventual apprehension under a Look Out Circular (LOC) at Mumbai airport on November 21, 2022, and subsequent arrest by the NCB.
- The statement of the co-accused (A1) clearly implicates the petitioner, stating that the parcel was booked and the drug was concealed “on the instructions of his uncle,” the present petitioner, who works in Qatar.
- Granting bail would pose a risk of the petitioner tampering with prosecution witnesses and involving himself in similar offenses, potentially ruining the careers of the younger generation.
Court Upholds Strict NDPS Bail Conditions
In its detailed analysis, the Court focused on the mandatory twin conditions for bail under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act. This section makes it exceptionally difficult to grant bail in cases involving commercial quantities, requiring the Court to be satisfied on two grounds:
- There are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offense.
- The accused is not likely to commit any offense while on bail.
Citing authoritative judgments from the Hon’ble Apex Court, including Union of India v. Mohammed Nawaz Khan and State of Kerala v. Rajesh, the Court reiterated that “reasonable grounds” means something more than a mere prima facie finding and requires substantial probable cause to believe the accused is innocent.
The Judge found that the available records, specifically the statement of A1 linking the petitioner to the booking and instruction of the drug parcel, constituted prima facie material against the petitioner.
“At this stage, there is primafacie material available against the present petitioner about his active involvement in booking of drug parcel seized in the case. The learned counsel for petitioner has failed to place any material before this court that he had no knowledge of booking of drug parcel involved in the case,” the order stated.
Given the gravity of the offense, the commercial quantity of the seized drug, and the prima facie material of the petitioner’s involvement, the Court concluded that the petitioner failed to satisfy the stringent conditions laid down under the NDPS Act.
The petition was therefore rejected, consigning Abdul Majeed Madathum Kuzhiyil to continued judicial custody.