In a decisive ruling highlighting the stringent provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the XXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru (CCH-33), rejected the second bail petition filed by Anandu Muruli @ Ananthu Murali (Accused No. 6). The order, delivered on December 6, 2022, by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, denied the petition (Crl. Misc. No. 11471/2022) filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
The petitioner was arrested in connection with Crime No. 92/2022 registered by the Soladevanahalli Police Station for offences under Section 20(b), 20(b)(i), and 22(c) of the NDPS Act. These sections relate to the possession and sale of cannabis and other controlled substances, with the classification of the seized quantity determining the severity of the charge.
Details of the Seizure and Allegations
The case was set in motion on May 11, 2022, when the Police Inspector (PI) of Soladevanahalli Police Station received credible information about persons selling “weed oil and ganja” near the Chikkabanavara Railway Parallel road. After obtaining permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), a raid was conducted.
Initially, two individuals (Accused No. 1 and 3) were apprehended at the spot. A personal search of these individuals led to the seizure of 10 grams of Ganja and 8 to 10 grams of weed oil. Following their voluntary statement, a search was conducted at their residence in Flat No. 1016, 10th floor of Desire Apartment, where they were reportedly staying with four other co-accused, including the present petitioner, Anandu Muruli (Accused No. 6).
During the house search, the police team allegedly seized a significant cache of contraband and related items, including:
- Ganja: 1 Kg and 580 grams
- Weed Oil/Ganja Oil: 1 Kg and 960 grams
- Weed Oil filled boxes: 154 boxes, weighing a total of 1,188 grams
- Other Incriminating Material: 1 weighing machine and vessels
Following the seizure, Accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were arrested.
The Critical Issue of Commercial Quantity
The court’s decision hinged on the quantum and nature of the seized substances, specifically whether they amounted to a commercial quantity, which triggers the most stringent bail conditions under the NDPS Act.
The court referenced the Ministry of Finance Notification S.O. 1055(E) dated October 19, 2001, which sets the standards for small and commercial quantities:
- Ganja: Small quantity is 1,000 grams (1 Kg), and Commercial quantity is 20 Kgs.
- Weed Oil/Ganja Oil: Commercial quantity is 1 Kg.
Based on these standards, the total seizure exceeded the commercial quantity threshold in multiple categories:
- The seizure included 1 Kg 960 grams of Weed Oil/Ganja Oil, which is significantly above the 1 Kg commercial quantity limit for weed oil.
- The overall seizure of Ganja, Weed Oil, and other related contraband was calculated as a commercial quantity, leading to the application of the severe punishment clause: rigorous imprisonment for a term between 10 to 20 years.
Bail Conditions and Judicial Scrutiny under Section 37
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Anandu Muruli was innocent, that there was no recovery directly from his physical possession, and that mandatory procedural provisions like Sections 41, 42, 50, 52, and 57 of the NDPS Act had not been complied with. They also emphasized that he was the only son of his parents and a permanent resident of Kerala.
The prosecution countered, asserting the huge quantum of contraband seized from the apartment where the petitioner was staying along with co-accused, arguing that this constituted conscious possession of a commercial quantity. They also warned that releasing the petitioner could lead to him tampering with witnesses and engaging in similar illicit activities.
The court reiterated the mandate of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes two mandatory prerequisites for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities:
- The court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence.
- The court must be satisfied that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Citing several judgments from the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, including Union of India v. Mohammed Nawaz Khan (2021) and State of Kerala Vs. Mahesh (2021), the court stressed that the gravity of the offence, the severity of the punishment, and the danger of absconding or tampering with evidence are basic considerations for bail, especially in heinous offences like drug trafficking, which threaten the younger generation.
The court specifically rejected the argument of non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act at this preliminary stage, noting that such an issue is a question of fact to be determined during the trial. Furthermore, the argument of “no recovery from the person” was dismissed, citing the precedent that possession from a shared vehicle or dwelling can constitute conscious possession, especially given that the petitioner was apprehended along with the other accused in the apartment where the huge commercial quantity of contraband was seized.
Conclusion
The judge concluded that there were prima facie materials available against the petitioner regarding the conscious possession of a commercial quantity of narcotic drugs. Given the severity of the punishment and the stringent parameters established by the Supreme Court for commercial quantity cases under the NDPS Act, the court found itself unable to form the requisite “reasonable grounds” to believe the petitioner was not guilty.
Consequently, the court rejected the second bail petition, holding that the petitioner had not made out any sufficient grounds to warrant his release at this stage.