In a significant order delivered on April 5, 2024, the XXXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (NDPS) in Bengaluru, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, rejected the bail application of a Nigerian national, Akanbi Saheed Agholahun, who stands accused of smuggling a commercial quantity of cocaine. The rejection underscores the stringent provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, particularly Section 37, which imposes severe restrictions on the grant of bail for offences involving commercial quantities of contraband.
The petitioner, Akanbi Saheed Agholahun, 35, hailing from Lagos, was arrested and prosecuted under Sections 21(c), 23(c), and 28 of the NDPS Act following a seizure of 927 grams of cocaine. The case, registered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Bengaluru Zonal Unit (BZU), is being tried as Special C.C. No. 2290/2023.
The Defence’s Arguments for Bail
In his petition filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), the petitioner argued that he was innocent and falsely implicated. Key grounds urged by his counsel, NKS., Adv., included assertions that the mandatory procedures contemplated under the NDPS Act were not followed during the recovery and seizure. The defence contended that no seizure was effected directly from the petitioner and that he had been unnecessarily connected with drug trafficking. Furthermore, the petitioner’s counsel highlighted that he is a youngster and a law-abiding foreign citizen with deep roots in society, ready to abide by any conditions, including offering surety, if granted bail. They stressed that while the alleged offence is non-bailable, it is not punishable with a life or death sentence, an argument often used to seek judicial leniency.
Prosecution Strongly Opposes Bail
The prosecution, represented by the Special Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the bail plea. The primary contention was the substantial quantity of the contraband seized: 927 grams of cocaine, which falls squarely under the definition of a “commercial quantity” as per the Ministry of Finance Notification S.O. 1055(E) dated October 19, 2001. The prosecution pointed out that the minimum punishment for offences involving commercial quantity is rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, which may extend to 20 years, along with a fine.
The prosecution further argued that the investigation was complete and that granting bail to a foreign national involved in drug trafficking posed a flight risk and a risk of tampering with prosecution witnesses. The Special Public Prosecutor also raised the societal concern that the petitioner was involved in an activity—selling drugs to the younger generation—that would ruin the career of youth, urging the court to reject the application on grounds of public interest and the serious nature of the crime.
The Court’s Analysis and Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent
The court, after hearing arguments from both sides and perusing the records, framed the central point for consideration as whether the petitioner had made out sufficient grounds to be enlarged on bail. The court’s detailed ‘Reasons’ section meticulously reviewed the facts of the case, beginning with the credible information received by the DRI on April 27, 2023, regarding a Nigerian national, Akanbi Saheed Agbolahun, attempting to smuggle drugs into India via an Ethiopian Airways flight from Addis Ababa.
The evidence presented detailed the interception of the accused at Kempegowda International Airport (KIA), Devanahalli, Bengaluru. Crucially, the prosecution records established that the accused, upon being intercepted, later admitted to ingesting capsules due to stomach disturbance. This led to the recovery of 23 capsules egested by him at the airport and a further 63 transparent gelatin-like capsules removed through a medical process at a hospital, which together yielded 927 grams of cocaine, a clear commercial quantity (the commercial quantity threshold being 100 grams).
The court then focused its legal reasoning on the mandatory conditions stipulated in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. This section imposes two mandatory hurdles for granting bail in commercial quantity cases: first, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence; and second, that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
To reinforce this strict interpretation, the court relied heavily on two Supreme Court judgments: NCB V/s Mohit Agarwal (2022) and Babua Vs. State of Orissa (2001). Citing the Mohit Agarwal dictum, the judge reiterated that the ‘narrow parameters of bail available under Section 37’ must be satisfied and that the length of custody or the filing of a charge-sheet are not, by themselves, persuasive grounds for granting relief. Furthermore, the Babua case was cited to emphasize the need to balance the liberty of a citizen with the interest of society, noting that activities involving narcotic drugs are “lethal to the society” and that keeping such persons behind bars during the pendency of proceedings is often in the interest of society.
Conclusion of the Court
The court found that the petitioner’s counsel had failed to place any material to convince the court that the petitioner was not in possession of the NDPS article. Given the prima facie material showing possession of a commercial quantity of cocaine, the court concluded that the mandatory twin conditions of Section 37 were not satisfied. Accordingly, Point No. 1 was answered in the Negative. The court pronounced its final order, rejecting the petition filed by Akanbi Saheed Agholahun under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. This decision serves as a firm judicial stance against international drug trafficking and affirms the rigorous application of the NDPS Act in Karnataka’s legal system.