The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to 38-year-old Sidharth Padmanabhan, alias P. Sidharth, in connection with a high-profile drug trafficking case. The order, delivered by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, Special Judge (NDPS), comes after the petitioner expressed a well-founded apprehension of arrest despite his name not appearing in the initial First Information Report or major investigation papers.

The case, registered as Crime Number 93/2022 at the Viveknagar Police Station, involves a complex web of drug peddling ranging from the “Dark Web” to forest-grown contraband from Andhra Pradesh. The charges include various sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, specifically Section 8(c), Section 22(c), Section 27(a), Section 20(ii)(B), and Section 23(c).

The CCB Raid and the Multi-State Drug Network

The legal proceedings originated on June 23, 2022, when the Central Crime Branch (CCB) conducted a raid at a residence in Neelasandra, Austin Town. The primary accused, Jithin Judo Haris (Accused No. 1), was apprehended with a significant haul of synthetic and natural drugs. The recovery included 15.8 grams of MDMA ecstasy pills, 0.48 grams of LSD strips, and 1 kilogram of Ganja.

Interrogation of Haris revealed a sophisticated operation where drugs were sourced through the Dark Web, from international contacts in South Africa, and from local networks in Kerala. As the investigation deepened, the police uncovered a supply chain involving Accused Numbers 3 through 6, who were allegedly storing massive quantities of drugs in sheds near Nallur Railway Station.

The scope of the case expanded significantly when a follow-up raid led to the seizure of 6 kilograms of Ganja and 5 liters of Hashish Oil. Furthermore, in September 2022, the CCB intercepted four women at Puttaparthi Railway Station arriving via the Prashanthi Express, seizing an additional 8 kilograms of Hashish Oil and several kilograms of Ganja.

Petitioner’s Apprehension of “False Implantation”

Sidharth Padmanabhan, represented by his legal counsel, approached the court seeking protection under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner, a resident of Indiranagar, argued that he was a law-abiding citizen with no connection to the seized drugs or the other accused persons.

The defense contended that although Sidharth’s name was not in the First Information Report, the police had frequently visited his house in his absence and had previously summoned him to the station, where he was allegedly made to sit for an entire day without justifiable cause or a formal notice. The petitioner argued that he was being “falsely implanted” into the case at the instance of extraneous elements and that his custodial interrogation was entirely unnecessary.

Prosecution’s Objection and Court’s Findings

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea, stating that the petitioner was required for further investigation. The prosecution argued that since Accused No. 1 had mentioned names during interrogation, Sidharth’s involvement needed to be thoroughly probed. They expressed concerns that if granted bail, the petitioner might abscond or continue illegal drug-selling activities.

However, the court noted a significant lack of incriminatory material against Sidharth Padmanabhan. In its reasoning, the court observed that the investigating agency had not collected any substantial evidence linking the petitioner to the massive hauls of MDMA, LSD, or Hashish Oil found with the other ten accused.

Judge B.S. Jayashree remarked that the petitioner had already cooperated by attending the police station for enquiry and was subsequently sent back. The court found that the prosecution’s objection did not contain specific allegations that would justify the denial of liberty, especially when the main perpetrators were already in judicial custody.

Terms of the Anticipatory Bail Order

Recognizing the petitioner’s right to liberty and the absence of immediate evidence, the court allowed the petition. The respondent police were directed to release Sidharth Padmanabhan on bail in the event of his arrest, subject to a personal bond of 1,00,000 rupees and two sureties of the same amount.

The court imposed the following stringent conditions to ensure cooperation:

• The petitioner shall not induce, threaten, or make promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing information to the court or police.
• He shall not threaten or try to tamper with prosecution witnesses in any manner.
• He shall not commit any similar offense while on bail.
• He must furnish photo identity proof for himself and his sureties.
• Any breach of these conditions will lead to the immediate cancellation of his bail.

This ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in protecting individuals from arbitrary arrest in instances where the investigating agencies fail to produce prima facie evidence of involvement in organized crime.