The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) in Bengaluru has denied bail to 24-year-old Srijith S, a native of Trivandrum, Kerala, who was arrested in connection with the seizure of a commercial quantity of MDMA. The order, passed by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), underscored the rigorous requirements of the law when dealing with high-volume synthetic drug trafficking.
The petitioner, Srijith S, was arrayed as Accused No. 2 in the case registered by the Madanayakanahalli Police. The prosecution successfully argued that the quantity of drugs recovered from the petitioner and his associate exceeded the legal threshold for personal use, triggering the stringent “commercial quantity” provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Details of the Thamanahalli Village Raid
The case originated on June 29, 2022, following a tactical operation by the Madanayakanahalli Police. Acting on credible intelligence that two individuals were peddling MDMA near the Acharya College subway, hidden within a eucalyptus tree bush, a raiding team was dispatched.
Upon arriving at the scene, the police apprehended Srijith S and another individual (Accused No. 1). A search conducted at the spot led to the recovery of 52 grams of MDMA and 19 grams of ganja. Under the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E), any quantity of MDMA exceeding 10 grams is classified as a “commercial quantity.” The 52 grams seized in this operation was more than five times the legal limit for commercial classification.
Arguments for Bail and the Plea for Parity
The counsel for the petitioner argued that Srijith S was a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record and had been falsely implicated. A significant part of the defense’s argument rested on the “ground of parity,” noting that the court had already granted bail to Accused Nos. 3 and 4 in the same case. The defense contended that the investigation was largely complete and that the petitioner was ready to abide by any conditions to secure his liberty.
However, the court rejected the parity argument. Judge B.S. Jayashree noted that Accused Nos. 3 and 4 were arrested separately and found with “intermediate quantities” of drugs, whereas the petitioner and Accused No. 1 were caught red-handed with a “commercial quantity.” The court clarified that the contraband seized from individuals apprehended together must be viewed collectively, and the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner was far greater than those against the co-accused who were granted bail.
Judicial Reasoning: The Bar Under Section 37
The court’s decision was heavily influenced by Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. This section mandates that for 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 unlikely to commit any offense while on bail.
The judge cited several landmark Supreme Court rulings, including State of Kerala vs. Rajesh (2020) and Union of India vs. Mohammed Nawaz Khan (2021), which emphasize that a liberal approach to bail in NDPS cases is uncalled for. The court noted:
“Reasonable grounds means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty. In the present case, the petitioner was apprehended with a commercial quantity of contraband, and there is prima facie material available against him.”
Final Decision
The court observed that the petitioner failed to provide any evidence to suggest he was not in conscious possession of the drugs at the time of the arrest. Furthermore, the court highlighted the lethal impact of MDMA on society and the younger generation, stating that the interests of the public must be balanced against individual liberty in such heinous crimes.
Finding no merit in the application, the court officially rejected the bail petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Srijith S will remain in judicial custody as the trial in Crime No. 316/2022 continues.