The Special Court for NDPS cases in Bengaluru has passed a significant order denying anticipatory bail to Khalandar S S, also known as Tamsy, who is accused of being a “main handler” in a massive drug trafficking network. The XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, delivered the ruling on August 23, 2022, citing the commercial quantity of the narcotics involved and the serious nature of the allegations presented by the Narcotics Control Bureau.

The petitioner, Khalandar S S, a 30-year-old resident of Somawarpet Taluk in Kodagu district, had approached the court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking protection from arrest. The case, registered as NCB No. 48/1/19/2021/BZU, involves multiple sections of the NDPS Act, including 8(c), 20(b)(ii)C, 23, 25, 27, 27A, 28, and 29. These sections cover everything from the possession and sale of narcotics to the financing of illicit traffic and criminal conspiracy.

Background of the Massive NCB Seizure

The roots of the case trace back to September 30, 2021, when NCB officials acted on credible information regarding the transportation of ganja in a Maruti Swift car near Kundalahalli. The subsequent interception led to the discovery of 136.8 kilograms of ganja concealed in eight parcel boxes. Following the initial arrest of Accused Nos. 1 and 2, subsequent house searches yielded additional quantities of the drug and over 5 lakh rupees in cash. The total quantity of ganja associated with this specific network reached a staggering 139.735 kilograms.

Under Indian law, specifically the Ministry of Finance Notification S.O.1055(E), any quantity of ganja exceeding 20 kilograms is classified as a “commercial quantity.” This classification triggers the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which creates a high legal threshold for the granting of bail.

The Role of Khalandar S S as Alleged by the NCB

The prosecution presented a compelling case against the petitioner, labeling him a key figure in the operation. During the interrogation of the first seven accused individuals, it was revealed that Khalandar S S and another individual named Rameez served as the “main handlers.”

The NCB alleged that the petitioner was responsible for managing customers and securing orders. He reportedly instructed other gang members to deliver the contraband by concealing it in Swiggy delivery bags to evade suspicion. Furthermore, the investigating agency tracked financial transactions through bank statements, which showed payments made from the petitioner’s account to other co-accused, suggesting an active role in financing and coordinating the illicit business.

The Court’s Findings and the “Rigors of Section 37”

In her detailed order, Judge B.S. Jayashree addressed the petitioner’s claims of innocence and his argument that he had not received official summons. The court noted that the NCB had issued multiple summons via speed post, some of which were confirmed as delivered while others were returned because the petitioner refused to accept them. This, the court noted, indicated that the petitioner was actively avoiding the investigation.

The judge emphasized that for commercial quantities of drugs, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. “The offences involved in the case are heinous in nature. Incriminatory material is already collected,” the court remarked.

The court also addressed the petitioner’s plea for parity, as some other accused in the case had been granted bail by the High Court. The judge clarified that those individuals had sought regular bail while in custody and, in some instances, were granted relief on specific medical grounds. Since the petitioner was seeking anticipatory bail while actively avoiding the investigating agency, the principle of parity did not apply.

Referencing several Supreme Court precedents, including the landmark Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, the court reiterated that anticipatory bail should not be granted in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband. The court concluded that the petitioner’s active involvement in drug trafficking and the financing of the business made him ineligible for the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail.

The court ultimately rejected the petition, clearing the way for the Narcotics Control Bureau to proceed with the necessary custodial measures to conclude the investigation into the drug trafficking syndicate.