The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) in Bengaluru has delivered a stern ruling against the drug menace in the city, rejecting the bail application of 23-year-old Ruhith Husain, alias Ruhith. The order, passed by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), underscores the judiciary’s uncompromising stance on cases involving commercial quantities of synthetic drugs and individuals with established criminal backgrounds.

The petitioner, a resident of Anvar Layout in K.G. Halli, was arrested by the Banasawadi Police in June 2022. He faced charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, specifically Section 8(c), which prohibits the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consumption, import, and export of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, and Section 22(b), which pertains to punishment for contravention in relation to psychotropic substances where the quantity involved is less than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity. However, during the proceedings, the court found the seized amount to meet the threshold of a “commercial quantity.”

The Banasawadi Police Raid and High-Speed Escape Attempt

The prosecution’s case dates back to June 28, 2022. At approximately 2:00 PM, officers from the Banasawadi Police Station were conducting routine vehicle checks at the 100-feet road near Pooja Dosa Camp. According to the police report, three individuals, including the petitioner, approached on a two-wheeler in a rash and negligent manner. When signaled to stop, the rider attempted to flee at high speed, nearly breaching a police barricade.

After a brief chase, the police surrounded and apprehended the three men, identified as Ruhith Husain, Mohammed Rizwan, and Mohammed Sadiq. A subsequent search of the scooter’s storage compartment (dicky) revealed white powder in plastic covers and two narcotic pills. The powder was confirmed to be MDMA (Methylenedioxymethamphetamine), weighing a total of 37 grams.

The Legal Threshold: Commercial Quantity and Criminal Antecedents

A pivotal point in the court’s decision was the classification of the seized drugs. Under the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E), for MDMA, any amount exceeding 10 grams is classified as a “commercial quantity.” Since the recovery was 37 grams, the case attracted the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Beyond the immediate drug charges, the investigating agency presented a detailed report highlighting the criminal history of the accused. The report identified the co-accused as rowdy sheeters involved in dacoity and theft. Crucially, it was revealed that Ruhith Husain himself has several pending cases, including an offense under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Attempt to Murder), registered at the D.J. Halli Police Station.

Arguments by the Defense and Prosecution

The counsel for the petitioner argued that Ruhith Husain was innocent and falsely implicated. The defense contended that the mandatory procedures for search and seizure under the NDPS Act were not followed, creating doubt regarding the recovery. They further argued that since the major portion of the investigation was concluded, the petitioner’s further detention was unnecessary.

The Public Prosecutor strongly countered these claims, emphasizing the heinous nature of the offense, which carries a potential sentence of 10 to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution argued that the petitioner is part of a drug network targeting the younger generation and that his release would pose a threat to society and the integrity of the trial.

The Court’s Rationale: “Negation of Bail is the Rule”

In rejecting the bail plea, Judge B.S. Jayashree cited various Supreme Court precedents, including the landmark judgment in State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh (2020). The court noted that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the court must be satisfied that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail.

The judge observed:

“In cases where narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances are involved, the petitioner would indulge in activities which are lethal to the society. Therefore, it would certainly be in the interest of the society to keep such persons behind bars during the pendency of the proceedings.”

The court found that the petitioner failed to provide any material to suggest he was not in possession of the drugs at the time of the arrest. Combined with his history of violent crime, including the pending attempt to murder charge, the court concluded that Ruhith Husain did not meet the criteria for release.

Final Order

The court answered the petition in the negative and officially rejected the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Ruhith Husain remains in judicial custody as the trial in Crime No. 275/2022 of Banasawadi Police Station continues.