The Court of the XXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS) in Bengaluru has rejected the bail petition filed by a man accused of drug trafficking, citing the recovery of a commercial quantity of LSD and Ganja. The accused, Ajay Kumar, 21, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 377/2022 registered at Whitefield Police Station for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, specifically Sections 8(c), 22(c), and 20(B).

The order, pronounced by Judge Smt. B.S. Jayashree on January 7, 2023, highlighted the stringent conditions for granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, particularly when the recovered quantity is deemed commercial.

Details of the Case and Seizure

The case was set into motion by the Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) of Whitefield Police Station based on a credible information received by the CCB Police Inspector (PI) on December 16, 2022, regarding a person selling prohibited contraband. The informant was noted to be in front of a Medplus medical shop near the 5th Cross, Borewell Road, Dodsworth Layout, Whitefield.

Acting on the information after obtaining permission from a higher officer, the police team conducted a raid. They apprehended the accused, identified as Ajay Kumar, who was allegedly using his work as a Swiggy and Zomato delivery boy to conceal and carry out drug trafficking. The prosecution alleged that he was offered a salary of Rs. 40,000/- by one Akelesh Yadav of Bihar to engage in this illicit activity.

During the search of the bag carried by the accused, the police allegedly recovered:

• 3 Kilograms (Kgs.) of Ganja
• 12 LSD strips weighing 0.14 grams

A detailed panchanama was prepared on the spot, and the accused was subsequently arrested, produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, and remanded to judicial custody (JC).

Arguments for and Against Bail

Advocate Sri NP., representing the petitioner Ajay Kumar, argued that his client was innocent and falsely implicated. The key grounds for seeking bail were:

1. The alleged offence, though non-bailable, is not punishable with imprisonment for life or death.
2. The quantum of contraband seized, according to the defence, did not constitute a commercial quantity.
3. The search and seizure procedures were vitiated by procedural impropriety, as the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were allegedly not followed.
4. The major portion of the investigation was concluded, and custodial interrogation was no longer warranted.

The Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail, contending that the accused had committed a heinous offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a term not less than 10 years and potentially up to 20 years, along with a fine. The prosecution emphasized that 0.14 grams of LSD strips seized is a commercial quantity, and if granted bail, the petitioner might tamper with witnesses, involve himself in similar offences, and continue to sell drugs, thereby ruining the careers of the younger generation.

The Court’s Finding on Commercial Quantity

The core of the court’s decision hinged on the quantity of LSD seized. The court referred to the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue Notification S.O. 1055(E) dated October 19, 2001, which specifies the small and commercial quantities of narcotic and psychotropic substances.

As per Sl. No. 133 of the notification, the commercial quantity for the narcotic drug LSD is 0.1 gram.

The court explicitly found that:

• The 0.14 grams of LSD seized is a commercial quantity.
• The 3 Kgs. of Ganja seized is classified as an intermediate quantity.

Since the recovery included a commercial quantity of a prohibited substance, the stringent conditions for bail laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act automatically applied.

Applying the Stringent Conditions of NDPS Act, Section 37

The Special Judge relied heavily on precedents set by the Hon’ble Apex Court, including the judgments in State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh (2020) and State of MP Vs. Kajad (2001). These rulings affirm that negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act.

The section mandates two critical conditions that the court must satisfy before granting bail:

1. There must be reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence.
2. The accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

The court observed that “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds, contemplating a substantial probable cause for believing the accused is innocent. In the present case, the court found the following:

• The seizure of 3 Kgs. of Ganja and 0.14 grams of commercial quantity LSD was from the conscious possession of the petitioner.
• The material on record indicated the petitioner’s involvement in procuring and selling the contraband, specifically noting his alleged use of his delivery job as a cover for drug peddling.
• The petitioner’s counsel failed to place any material before the court to suggest the petitioner was not involved in the drug trade.
• The court held that at this stage, there is prima facie material available against the petitioner regarding his pivotal role in the sale of contraband.

In light of the stringent legal requirements under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the gravity of the offence, the court concluded that the petitioner had not made out sufficient grounds to entertain his plea for bail.

The petition filed by Ajay Kumar under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was consequently rejected, ensuring his continued detention pending the trial proceedings.