The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) in Bengaluru has rejected the bail application of 52-year-old Purushottama, who was arrested for allegedly possessing a commercial quantity of Hashish oil. The order, delivered by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), emphasized the stringent legal parameters governing bail in drug trafficking cases involving large quantities of prohibited substances.
The petitioner, a resident of Vishakapatnam District in Andhra Pradesh, was seeking enlargement on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) following his arrest by the Parappana Agrahara Police.
Details of the Narcotics Bust at Electronic City
According to the prosecution’s case, the criminal law was set into motion on May 3, 2022. The Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) of Parappana Agrahara Police Station received credible intelligence at approximately 2:30 pm regarding individuals peddling Hashish oil near the Phase 2 bus stand in Electronic City, Bengaluru.
Acting on this tip-off, a raiding team was formed after informing higher officials. The police mounted surveillance in the area and spotted two suspicious individuals. Upon apprehending them and conducting a personal search, the police allegedly discovered 1 kilogram and 164 grams of Hashish oil. A detailed mahazar (seizure memo) was drawn up at the spot, and the suspects were arrested. The petitioner in this case is arrayed as Accused No. 1 in Crime No. 153/2022.
Arguments for the Petitioner and Prosecution Objections
The counsel representing Purushottama argued that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen who has been falsely implicated in the case. The defense contended that the mandatory procedures contemplated under the NDPS Act were not followed during the recovery process. Furthermore, it was argued that the investigation was largely complete, custodial interrogation was no longer necessary, and that continued detention in a central prison alongside hardened criminals would ruin the petitioner’s career and life.
Conversely, the Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail plea. The state argued that the quantity of Hashish oil seized—1.164 kg—categorically falls under the “commercial quantity” definition. The prosecution highlighted that the offences carry severe penalties, including rigorous imprisonment for 10 to 20 years. They expressed concerns that if released, the petitioner might tamper with witnesses, involve himself in similar offences, or abscond to evade trial, especially given his out-of-state residence.
The Legal Threshold of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
The primary hurdle for the petitioner was Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which places a heavy burden on the accused in cases involving commercial quantities. Unlike regular criminal cases where bail is the rule, under the NDPS Act, “negation of bail is the rule and its grant is an exception.”
The court noted that according to the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E), Hashish oil weighing 1 kg or more is considered a commercial quantity. Since the seizure was 1.164 kg, the stringent “twin conditions” of Section 37(1)(b) apply. These conditions require the court to be satisfied that:
- There are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence.
- The accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Judicial Precedents Cited by the Court
In reaching its decision, the court relied on several landmark judgments from the Supreme Court of India:
- Union of India vs. Mohammed Nawaz Khan (2021): The Apex Court emphasized that courts must apply stringent parameters to curb the menace of drug trafficking. It clarified that “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds and requires substantial probable causes for believing in the accused’s innocence.
- State of Kerala vs. Rajesh (2020): The Supreme Court observed that a liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is uncalled for, given the underlying object of the legislation to protect society from the lethal effects of narcotics.
- State of MP vs. Kajad (2001): This judgment reinforced that the limitations on granting bail under Section 37 are in addition to the limitations provided under the Cr.P.C.
Court Verdict: Bail Rejected
The court observed that the petitioner was apprehended with the contraband in a public place and failed to place any material before the court to suggest he was not in possession of the NDPS article at the time of search.
The judge stated that the liberty of an individual must be balanced against the interests of society. Given the commercial quantity involved and the potential impact on the younger generation, the court found no grounds to believe the petitioner was not guilty at this stage.
Concluding that the petitioner failed to satisfy the “twin conditions” required for bail in commercial quantity cases, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge rejected the application. Purushottama will remain in judicial custody as the trial in Spl.C.C.2185/2022 proceeds.