In a stringent application of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, a Special Judge in Bengaluru rejected the bail petition for two accused persons, Akil Raj and Sooraj, who were arrested with commercial quantities of LSD and MDMA. The order, delivered on March 21, 2024, by the XXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (NDPS), Smt. B.S. Jayashree, underscored the high threshold for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of illegal narcotics, as mandated by Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The petitioners, Akil Raj (Accused No. 1) and Sooraj (Accused No. 2), had filed the petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking release on bail in connection with Crime No. 28/2024 registered by the Indiranagar Police Station. The charges were levied under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, which carries a rigorous imprisonment sentence of up to 20 years.
The Prosecution’s Case and Quantity Determination
The case was set into motion following credible information received by the Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) of the Indiranagar Police Station on February 13, 2024. The information suggested that three individuals were illegally selling contraband near the BDA complex compound in Indiranagar. A raid was conducted after obtaining permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP). The police team, with panchas (independent witnesses), successfully apprehended the suspects after a decoy operation confirmed the illegal drug transaction.
The search conducted under a detailed mahazar led to the seizure of 0.140 grams of LSD strips and 11 grams of MDMA from the accused persons.
A key point of contention and the ultimate determinant in the bail decision was the quantity of the seized substances. The court referenced the Ministry of Finance Notification S.O. 1055(E) dated October 19, 2001, to classify the quantities:
- MDMA (Ecstasy): The commercial quantity threshold is 10 grams. The seizure of 11 grams was therefore classified as a commercial quantity.
- LSD (Lysergic acid diethylamide): The commercial quantity threshold is 0.1 gram. The seizure of 0.140 grams was also classified as a commercial quantity.
The finding that both substances seized were in commercial quantities immediately invoked the stringent mandatory conditions stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Grounds for Bail and the Court’s Rejection
The petitioners’ counsel argued that the accused were innocent, falsely implicated, and law-abiding citizens with no criminal antecedents. They contended that while the offence is non-bailable, it is not punishable with death or life imprisonment, and they were willing to abide by any conditions and furnish surety for their release.
Conversely, the prosecution strongly opposed the plea, arguing that the accused were habitual drug dealers and that their release would allow them to continue their illicit trade, abscond, and tamper with evidence. They stressed the prima facie case based on the commercial quantity seized.
In its reasoned order, the court focused entirely on the strict twin conditions of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, which governs bail for offences involving commercial quantities:
- The Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence.
- The Court must be satisfied that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Reliance on Apex Court Judgments
The Special Judge meticulously cited and applied the guiding principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in NDPS cases, particularly the judgments in State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh (2020) and Union of India through NCB, Lucknow Vs. Mohammed Nawaz Khan (2021).
The court highlighted the Rajesh judgment, which clarified that “reasonable grounds” under Section 37 means “something more than prima-facie grounds” and contemplates a substantial probable cause for believing that the accused is not guilty. The Supreme Court had previously cautioned against a liberal approach in granting bail under the NDPS Act, given the deterrent punishment and the seriousness of illicit drug trafficking.
Furthermore, the court’s detailed analysis of the Mohammed Nawaz Khan case reinforced the stringent parameters. The Supreme Court in that case had discussed that merely arguing the absence of recovery from the person of the accused (as opposed to from a vehicle or container) does not absolve the High Court of the level of scrutiny required by Section 37.
Applying these precedents, the Bengaluru court observed:
“At this stage, there is primafacie material available against the petitioners in regard to possessing the contraband at the time of their apprehension. The total recovery of contraband MDMA and LSD in the case is commercial quantity.”
The court noted that the petitioners were apprehended with the commercial quantum of contraband in their conscious possession. Given this strong prima facie evidence and the severity of the charges, the court concluded that the petitioners had failed to place any material to satisfy the mandatory twin conditions of Section 37—specifically, that there were no reasonable grounds for believing them not guilty.
The court, therefore, ruled that the petitioners had not made out any grounds to entertain their plea for bail, leading to the rejection of the petition. This order serves as a clear reaffirmation of the judiciary’s firm stance against drug trafficking and the high evidentiary burden placed on an accused when seeking bail for offences involving commercial quantities of narcotic substances.