BENGALURU – The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) in Bengaluru has rejected the second bail application of 31-year-old Prasanna S.M., who was arrested by the Ramamurthynagar Police for allegedly possessing and attempting to sell commercial quantities of MDMA and Ganja. The order, delivered by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), on January 6, 2023, underscored the stringent legal barriers for bail in cases involving commercial quantities of synthetic drugs.
The petitioner, a native of Pandavapura Taluk in Mandya District currently residing in Mahadevapura, was seeking release from judicial custody in connection with Crime No. 333/2022. He faced charges under Sections 22(c) and 20B of the NDPS Act.
The Midnight Raid at KR Puram Railway Station
The prosecution’s case dates back to September 2, 2022. According to the police report, the Sub-Inspector of Ramamurthynagar Police Station received credible intelligence at 8:00 PM regarding two individuals loitering near the compound of the KR Puram Railway Station in Kasturi Nagar. The informants suggested the duo were carrying plastic covers containing prohibited substances intended for sale to the public.
After obtaining the necessary permissions from the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) and Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) of the Banaswadi sub-division, a raid was organized. By 8:40 PM, the police team, equipped with electronic weighing scales and portable printers, surrounded two suspects identified as Pradeep and Prasanna S.M.
Upon interrogation, the suspects allegedly confessed to purchasing the contraband for illegal distribution. A personal search conducted in the presence of the ACP revealed 12 grams of MDMA in the possession of Accused No. 1 (Pradeep) and 500 grams of Ganja in the bag held by the petitioner, Accused No. 2 (Prasanna).
Defense Arguments: Claims of False Implication
The counsel for the petitioner, Sri BRRP, argued that Prasanna was an innocent citizen with no criminal background who had been falsely implicated by the police. The defense contended that the mandatory procedures for search and seizure under the NDPS Act were not followed by the investigating officer.
Furthermore, the defense argued that because the Ganja seized from the petitioner (500 grams) was less than a commercial quantity, he should be entitled to bail. They maintained that the investigation was largely complete and that continued custodial interrogation was unnecessary for a permanent resident of the state.
Prosecution’s Stand: Commercial Quantity and Public Safety
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petition, highlighting that 12 grams of MDMA constitutes a “commercial quantity” under the law. The state argued that the two accused were operating in tandem, and under the NDPS Act, the total recovery from the group must be considered.
The prosecution labeled the petitioner a “habitual drug peddler” and expressed grave concerns that his release would lead to the continuation of drug trafficking activities. They emphasized that the offenses carry a rigorous imprisonment term of 10 to 20 years, making the petitioner a flight risk and a threat to the integrity of the prosecution’s evidence.
Judicial Analysis: The Rigors of Section 37
In her detailed order, Judge B.S. Jayashree focused on the classification of MDMA. Under the Ministry of Finance notification, any amount of MDMA exceeding 10 grams is categorized as a commercial quantity. In this case, the 12 grams seized triggered the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The Judge cited several landmark Supreme Court rulings, including Union of India Vs. Mohammed Nawaz Khan and State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh, to explain the “twin conditions” for bail in commercial drug cases. Under Section 37, a court can only grant bail if it is satisfied that:
- There are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty of the offense.
- The accused is not likely to commit any offense while on bail.
The court noted that “reasonable grounds” means something more than a prima facie case; it requires substantial probable cause to believe in the innocence of the accused. The judge observed that at this stage, the statements and seizure mahazar provided by the prosecution established a strong link between the petitioner and the illegal substances.
Conclusion and Final Order
The court concluded that the petitioner had failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements for bail. The Judge emphasized that in cases involving synthetic drugs like MDMA, which are lethal to society, the liberty of the individual must be balanced against the larger interest of public safety and the curbing of the drug menace.
Finding that there were no reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner was not guilty at this preliminary stage, the court dismissed the application. “The petitioner was apprehended and 12 grams of MDMA and 500 grams Ganja was seized. The petitioner has not made out any grounds to entertain the plea,” the order stated.
The petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. was officially rejected, and Prasanna S.M. will remain in judicial custody as the trial proceedings continue.