In a firm decision underscoring the severity of drug-related offences, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge & Special Judge (NDPS) in Bengaluru, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, rejected the bail application of Appu A @ Pune, also known as Accused No. 3, who was arrested in connection with a major drug bust. The order, pronounced on September 14, 2022, pertained to Crime No. 170/2022 registered by the Bommanahalli Police Station for offences under Section 20(B)(ii)(c) and Section 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, which involve commercial quantities of contraband.
The petitioner, represented by Sri SK, Advocate, sought bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., arguing that he was an innocent and law-abiding citizen who had been falsely implicated. A primary ground for his bail plea was the contention that the 1.130 Kgs of Ganja allegedly seized from him was below commercial quantity and that the mandatory procedure under the NDPS Act had not been strictly followed during the recovery. Furthermore, he asserted his willingness to cooperate with the court and abide by any conditions imposed.
Prosecution’s Opposition and the Commercial Quantity Threshold
The prosecution, represented by the Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the bail petition. The counter-argument was centered on the fact that the total seizure in the case included 12 grams of MDMA and 1 Kg, 130 grams of Ganja. The prosecution maintained that the 12 grams of MDMA constitutes a commercial quantity, which immediately triggers the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Crucially, the Court’s analysis focused on the collective possession of the contraband. The investigation papers indicated that the petitioner (Accused No. 3), along with the co-accused (Accused No. 1), were apprehended together on August 27 and 28, 2022, respectively, and were engaged in drug trading. The Court held that the MDMA seized from Accused No. 1 and the Ganja seized from the petitioner (Accused No. 3) must be taken together to determine the actual seizure, thereby classifying the total quantum as commercial.
The offences are punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, which may extend up to 20 years, alongside a fine. The prosecution also cited the risk of the petitioner tampering with witnesses, absconding, or involving himself in similar offences, particularly emphasizing the threat drug peddling poses to the younger generation. Furthermore, the prosecution informed the court that several cases were already pending against the petitioner before the Bommanahalli police station, countering the defense’s claim of a lack of criminal antecedents.
Judicial Scrutiny and Section 37 of the NDPS Act
The core of the Court’s rejection lay in the failure of the petitioner to satisfy the twin conditions stipulated under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. This section imposes a severe restriction on the grant of bail for offences involving commercial quantities, requiring the Court to be satisfied on two counts:
- There must be reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence.
- The Court must be satisfied that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
To substantiate its position, the Court relied heavily on a series of judgments from the Hon’ble Apex Court, including the recent ruling in Union of India through NCB., Lucknow Vs. Mohammed Nawaz Khan (Crl. Appeal No. 1043/2021). The Court cited this precedent to reiterate the need for stringent parameters when granting bail in NDPS cases, stressing that mere absence of recovery from the person of the accused does not automatically absolve them of the required scrutiny under Section 37.
The judgment also referenced State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh and State of MP Vs. Kajad, which emphasize that “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds and that a “liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is uncalled for.” The Hon’ble Apex Court’s dictum that “Negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception under sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of Section 37(1)” was reiterated.
Conclusion of the Court
The Special Judge determined that the investigation papers, which detailed the coordinated raid and the collective seizure of 12 grams of MDMA (a commercial quantity) and 1.130 Kgs of Ganja, provided prima facie material against the petitioner regarding the possession of narcotic drugs. The defense counsel failed to present any material to satisfy the Court that the petitioner was not in possession of the NDPS articles or that he was not likely to commit further offences.
In conclusion, the Court held that the petitioner had failed to make out sufficient grounds to entertain his plea for bail, leading to the outright rejection of the petition. The ruling signifies a strict judicial approach toward drug trafficking crimes, particularly those involving commercial quantities, in line with the deterrent framework established by the NDPS Act and affirmed by the Supreme Court.