The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) in Bengaluru has dismissed the bail application of 21-year-old Sameer Pasha, who was arrested for allegedly possessing and selling MDMA. The order, delivered on December 15, 2022, by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, emphasizes the stringent legal parameters surrounding drug trafficking involving commercial quantities of synthetic drugs.
The petitioner, Sameer Pasha, a resident of Shamanna Garden on Mysore Road, sought release from judicial custody in connection with Crime Number 161/2022 registered by the Byatarayanapura Police Station. The case involves allegations under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Details of the Police Raid and Arrest
The criminal proceedings were initiated following a report by the Police Sub-Inspector of Byatarayanapura Police Station. According to the prosecution, on June 27, 2022, credible information was received regarding an individual selling MDMA illegally near the Kimko Junction at Nice Road on Mysore Road.
Acting on this intelligence and after obtaining the necessary permissions from higher authorities, the police conducted a raid and apprehended Sameer Pasha at the spot. During a personal search, the investigating agency allegedly recovered 12 grams of MDMA from the petitioner. A detailed seizure mahazar (official record) was prepared at the site, and the petitioner was subsequently arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
Arguments Presented for the Accused
The legal counsel for Sameer Pasha argued that the petitioner is an innocent, law-abiding citizen who has been falsely implicated in the case. The defense contended that the procedures contemplated under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, were not strictly followed during the recovery process.
A significant portion of the bail plea rested on humanitarian grounds. The petitioner’s counsel argued that Sameer’s mother, Ayusha, was unwell and required his care. Medical prescriptions and reports were submitted to the court to support the claim that the petitioner’s presence at home was necessary. The defense further argued that since the major portion of the investigation was concluded, custodial interrogation was no longer required.
Prosecution Highlights the Commercial Quantity
The Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail petition, pointing out that the quantity of MDMA seized—12 grams—exceeds the “commercial quantity” threshold. Under the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification, 10 grams of MDMA is classified as a commercial quantity.
The prosecution argued that offences involving commercial quantities carry severe penalties, including rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years, which may extend to 20 years, along with a substantial fine. They contended that releasing the petitioner at this stage could lead to the tampering of witnesses or his re-involvement in similar criminal activities. Furthermore, the state argued that such drug trafficking activities ruin the careers of the younger generation.
Judicial Reasoning and the Rigors of Section 37
In her analysis, Judge B.S. Jayashree addressed the medical grounds raised by the defense. After reviewing the medical reports, the court noted that the petitioner’s mother, aged 45, was diagnosed with cervical spondylosis. The court observed that this is not a life-threatening ailment and can be managed with medication and exercise, concluding that the petitioner’s presence was not indispensable for her care.
The court focused heavily on Section 37(1)(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. This section mandates that for offences involving commercial quantities, bail can only be granted if the court is satisfied that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
The judge cited several landmark Supreme Court judgments, including Union of India vs. Mohammed Nawaz Khan and State of Kerala vs. Rajesh. These precedents establish that “reasonable grounds” mean more than just a prima facie case; they require substantial probable causes for believing the accused is not guilty.
Conclusion of the Court
The court found that there was significant prima facie material against Sameer Pasha regarding the possession of a commercial quantity of MDMA. The petitioner failed to provide any evidence to suggest he was not in possession of the drugs at the time of the search.
The judge remarked that in narcotics cases, the liberty of an individual must be balanced against the interests of society. Given the lethal impact of such substances on the community, the court held that no exceptional grounds were made out to entertain the bail plea. Consequently, the petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected.