A Special Narcotics Court in Bengaluru has rejected the bail application of 22-year-old Subin Binoy, a student from Kerala, following the seizure of a significant “commercial quantity” of Ganja and Weed Oil. The order, delivered by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS, emphasized the gravity of the offense and the stringent requirements for bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The petitioner, a B.Sc. student at a private institute in Chikkabanavara and a native of Kottayam, Kerala, was arrayed as Accused Number 1 in the case. He had sought liberty under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after being arrested in a coordinated raid by the Soladevanahalli Police.

Details of the Apartment Raid and Narcotics Seizure

The prosecution’s case dates back to May 11, 2022, when the Soladevanahalli Police received credible intelligence regarding the sale of narcotics near the Chikkabanavara Railway Parallel Road. Following a successful sting operation, the police apprehended two individuals, Subin Binoy and Mohammed Irfan (Accused Number 3).

A search of their persons led to the discovery of small packets of Ganja and Weed Oil. However, the investigation took a deeper turn when the accused led the police to Flat Number 1016 in the Mahaveer Desire Apartment. Upon raiding the flat, the police discovered a large-scale operation involving five other individuals (Accused Numbers 4 to 7).

The consolidated seizure from the raid included:

• 1 Kilogram and 580 grams of Ganja.
• 1 Kilogram and 960 grams of Weed Oil (also known as Ganja Oil).
• 154 boxes filled with weed oil, totaling 1,188 grams.
• Weighing machines and various vessels used for processing the contraband.

The Soladevanahalli Police registered the case under Sections 20(b), 20(b)(i), and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Defense Arguments for the Petitioner

The legal counsel for Subin Binoy argued that the petitioner was a bright student whose future would be permanently tarnished by continued judicial custody. The defense contended that the petitioner was falsely implicated and that there was no “conscious possession” of the drugs found in the apartment.

A major point of contention raised by the defense was the alleged non-compliance with Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which dictates the procedure for entry, search, seizure, and arrest without a warrant. The defense argued that since the mandatory procedural safeguards were ignored by the raiding party, the seizure itself was questionable.

Prosecution’s Objection: The Menace of Drug Trafficking

The Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail plea, highlighting that the total quantity of Weed Oil seized far exceeded the commercial threshold. The state argued that the group was actively targeting the younger generation and college students in the Chikkabanavara area.

The prosecution emphasized that the investigation had concluded and a charge sheet had been filed, which clearly indicated the petitioner’s active involvement in the drug peddling network. They expressed strong concerns that if released on bail, the petitioner, hailing from Kerala, might flee from justice or attempt to influence witnesses.

The Court’s Reasoning and the Rigors of Section 37

In evaluating the bail application, the court focused on the classification of the seized substances. Under the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification, 1 kilogram of Weed Oil/Ganja Oil is considered a “commercial quantity.” In this case, the seizure of nearly 2 kilograms of the oil plus over 1 kilogram of filled boxes placed the offense in the highest tier of severity.

Judge B.S. Jayashree noted that when a “commercial quantity” is involved, the court must adhere to the stringent parameters of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. This section mandates that 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 court observed that the petitioner and Accused Number 3 were the ones who led the police to the apartment where the bulk of the contraband was found. This suggested a clear nexus and conscious possession. Regarding the defense’s claim of procedural non-compliance with Section 42, the judge remarked that such factual disputes must be resolved during a full-fledged trial and cannot be used as a primary ground for bail in a commercial quantity case.

The judge cited several Supreme Court of India precedents, including the recent case of State of Kerala vs. Mahesh, which cautioned courts against mechanically granting bail in heinous offenses. The court held that the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the potential punishment (ranging from 10 to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment) outweighed the petitioner’s status as a student.

Final Decision

The court concluded that the petitioner failed to satisfy the “twin conditions” required for bail in a commercial quantity narcotics case. Finding substantial prima facie evidence of the petitioner’s involvement in an organized drug peddling network, the court rejected the bail application.

The order confirms that Subin Binoy will remain in judicial custody as the trial proceedings continue.