BENGALURU – The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) in Bengaluru has rejected the bail application of 25-year-old Surendra G, who was arrested in connection with a major drug trafficking racket. The court, presided over by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), ruled that the seizure of commercial quantities of synthetic drugs like MDMA and LSD created a significant legal bar against granting liberty to the accused.
The petitioner, a resident of K.S. Layout and an Accounts Manager at Lenskart, was apprehended following a targeted raid by the Central Crime Branch (CCB). The case, registered under Crime Number 171/2022 at the K.S. Layout Police Station, involves serious charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, including the possession of commercial quantities of psychotropic substances and the financing of illicit traffic.
The CCB Raid and Massive Drug Recovery
The investigation began on May 22, 2022, when the Central Crime Branch received credible intelligence regarding illegal narcotics being stored at a residence in Kumaraswamy Layout 1st Stage. Upon raiding the premises, the police apprehended Surendra G (Accused No. 1) and his associate Rajesh (Accused No. 2).
During the operation, the authorities recovered a substantial haul of various narcotics. The total seizure across the different accused in the case included:
- 9.1 kilograms of Ganja
- 250 grams of Hashish Oil
- 20 LSD strips weighing 0.19 grams
- 15 grams of MDMA crystals
The prosecution alleged that Surendra G was not merely a consumer but a key player in a drug trading network, coordinating with suppliers from other states, including a native of Kerala identified as Fiyaz.
Legal Definitions: Commercial vs. Small Quantities
A critical aspect of the court’s refusal to grant bail was the classification of the seized substances. Under the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification, the weight of the drug determines the severity of the legal rigors.
The court highlighted two specific thresholds:
- MDMA: The commercial quantity threshold for MDMA is 10 grams. Since the police seized 15 grams, the offense falls under the most severe category.
- LSD: The commercial quantity for LSD is 0.1 gram. The seizure of 0.19 grams in this case also qualifies as a commercial quantity.
Under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, offenses involving commercial quantities are non-bailable and carry a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years of rigorous imprisonment.
Defense Contentions and Financial Evidence
The petitioner’s counsel, Sri KSV, argued that Surendra G was a law-abiding professional with a stable job and a good family background. The defense claimed that the 5 kg of ganja seized was “half wet” and did not meet commercial volume standards. They further argued that the seizures from different accused should be treated individually rather than collectively. The defense also challenged the search and seizure procedures, claiming they were not in accordance with the law.
However, the prosecution presented compelling evidence from the case diary, which was submitted to the court in a sealed cover. This included details of financial transactions conducted through online platforms and credit cards. The prosecution alleged that Surendra G allowed Accused No. 4 to use his bank accounts to funnel money generated from drug sales. Voluntary statements indicated that the accused believed the drug business to be a “lucrative” way to earn money following a personal accident in 2021.
The Section 37 Bar: “Bail is the Exception”
In her detailed order, Judge B.S. Jayashree invoked Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. This section mandates that for commercial quantities, a court can only grant bail if it is satisfied that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail.
Citing several Supreme Court precedents, including Union of India vs. Mohammed Nawaz Khan and State of Kerala vs. Rajesh, the judge emphasized that a liberal approach in drug cases is “uncalled for.” The court noted that “reasonable grounds” means something more than just a prima facie case; it requires substantial probable cause to believe in the innocence of the accused.
Given the gravity of the offenses and the ongoing nature of the investigation—specifically the need to apprehend the interstate suppliers—the court found no grounds to exercise its discretion. The judge concluded that the interests of society in curbing the “menace of drug trafficking” outweighed the petitioner’s plea for individual liberty. Consequently, the bail petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was rejected.