BENGALURU – The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) has rejected the bail application of a 52-year-old man from Andhra Pradesh, who was arrested for allegedly possessing a commercial quantity of hashish oil. The court ruled that the stringent parameters of the NDPS Act and the gravity of the offense outweighed the petitioner’s plea for liberty.
The order was delivered by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), in response to a petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner, identified as Purushottama, a resident of Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, has been in judicial custody since his arrest in May 2022.
Background of the Electronic City Drug Bust
The case, registered as Crime No. 153/2022 by the Parappana Agrahara Police Station, originated from a proactive raid conducted on May 3, 2022. Acting on credible intelligence regarding drug peddling near the Phase 2 bus stand in Electronic City, a police raiding team mounted surveillance in the area.
During the operation, the police intercepted two individuals acting suspiciously. A subsequent search led to the recovery of 1 kilogram and 164 grams of hashish oil. The contraband was seized on the spot under a detailed mahazar (seizure memo), and Purushottama was arrayed as Accused No. 1. The police subsequently charged him under Sections 8(c), 21(c), and 22(c) of the NDPS Act.
Arguments Presented by the Defense and Prosecution
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Purushottama was a law-abiding citizen who had been falsely implicated in the case. The defense contended that the quantity seized was allegedly less than the commercial threshold and that since the major portion of the investigation was concluded, custodial interrogation was no longer warranted. They further argued that prolonged detention would spoil the petitioner’s career by exposing him to hardened criminals in central prison.
Conversely, the Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail plea, emphasizing that the seizure of 1.164 kg of hashish oil clearly constitutes a “commercial quantity” under the law. The prosecution argued that the illicit trade of such substances ruins the lives of the younger generation and that the petitioner, if released, would likely engage in similar offenses or tamper with prosecution witnesses.
Judicial Reasoning and the Rigors of Section 37
In her detailed reasoning, Judge B.S. Jayashree highlighted that under the Ministry of Finance notification dated October 19, 2001, any quantity of hashish oil exceeding 1 kilogram is classified as “commercial.” The seizure in this case surpassed that limit.
The court placed significant emphasis on Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which creates a negative burden for bail in commercial quantity cases. The judge noted that for bail to be granted, the court must be satisfied that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail.
The court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India vs. Mohammed Nawaz Khan, which reiterated that the High Court and Sessions Courts must apply stringent parameters to curb the menace of drug trafficking. The judge also cited the State of Kerala vs. Rajesh (2020) verdict, which clarified that “reasonable grounds” mean something more than prima facie grounds—it requires substantial probable causes for believing in the innocence of the accused.
Final Verdict: Liberty vs. Social Interest
The court observed that at this stage of the proceedings, there is strong prima facie material suggesting the petitioner was in conscious possession of a narcotic substance. The judge remarked that the liberty of an individual must be balanced against the interests of society, especially in cases involving lethal substances like narcotic drugs.
“Negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception under the NDPS Act,” the court observed, citing the Apex Court’s stance in State of MP vs. Kajad.
Finding no merit in the arguments for innocence at this preliminary stage, and noting the severity of the punishment—which can range from 10 to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment—the court dismissed the petition. Consequently, Purushottama will remain in judicial custody as the trial progresses.