BENGALURU – A Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) in Bengaluru has rejected the bail applications of two youths, Syed Mohammed Hilaal and Adesh Jaiswal, following their arrest for allegedly possessing commercial quantities of MDMA and Ganja. The court emphasized that the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly regarding commercial quantities, create a legal environment where “negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception.”

The order was passed by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), on January 11, 2023. The petitioners, Syed Mohammed Hilaal (24), an Engineering student, and Adesh Jaiswal (21), an interior decorator, were seeking release from judicial custody following their arrest by the Marathahalli Police.

The Police Raid and Contraband Seizure

The case, registered as Crime Number 290/2022, originated from a raid conducted on December 7, 2022. Acting on credible information regarding the sale of narcotics near Manikanta Bakery in Marathahalli, police officials apprehended three individuals: the two petitioners and a third associate, Wasim Akram.

According to the prosecution, the search led to the following recoveries:

• Syed Mohammed Hilaal (Accused No. 1): Found in possession of 1 kilogram and 200 grams of Ganja.
• Wasim Akram (Accused No. 2): Found in possession of 11 grams of MDMA crystals.
• Adesh Jaiswal (Accused No. 3): Found in possession of 1 kilogram and 100 grams of Ganja.

The total seizure amounted to 2.3 kilograms of Ganja and 11 grams of MDMA. The accused allegedly confessed to purchasing the substances from various sources in HAL and Vibuthipura for resale to the public.

Understanding the Legal Threshold: Section 37 of the NDPS Act

The central legal debate in this bail hearing revolved around the quantity of the drugs seized. Under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the severity of the offense and the difficulty of obtaining bail are determined by whether the quantity is “small,” “intermediate,” or “commercial.”

In this case, while the Ganja seized from each petitioner individually (approx. 1.1 kg to 1.2 kg) fell into the “intermediate” category, the 11 grams of MDMA seized during the joint operation exceeded the 10-gram threshold for “commercial quantity.”

The court noted that when multiple accused are caught together, the “joint possession” of the entire haul must be considered. Under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, bail for commercial quantities 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 further offenses while on bail.

Defense Arguments: Student Status and Procedural Lapses

Counsel for the petitioners argued that Hilaal, a Mechanical Engineering student at Residency College, and Jaiswal, an interior decorator, were the sole breadwinners of their families and had no prior criminal records. They contended that the mandatory search and seizure procedures under the NDPS Act were not followed and that they had been “falsely implanted” in the case.

The defense specifically highlighted that the Ganja seized from the petitioners personally was only an “intermediate” quantity, which usually carries a more liberal approach to bail compared to commercial amounts.

Why the Court Rejected the Bail Plea

Judge B.S. Jayashree dismissed the defense’s arguments, citing several Supreme Court precedents, including State of Kerala vs. Rajesh and Union of India vs. Mohammed Nawaz Khan. The court held that the presence of 11 grams of MDMA—a commercial quantity—triggered the strict “twin conditions” of Section 37.

The court’s reasoning included:

• Commercial Quantity Trigger: The MDMA seizure (11g) surpassed the 10g limit, making the offense exceptionally grave and punishable by up to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.
• Joint Possession: Since the accused were caught together, the court refused to view the Ganja and MDMA seizures in isolation.
• Societal Interest: The judge remarked that the liberty of a citizen must be balanced against the lethal impact of drug trafficking on society.
• Failure to Prove Innocence: The court found that at this prima facie stage, there was enough evidence to link the petitioners to the crime, and they failed to provide substantial cause to believe they were not guilty.

Concluding that no sufficient grounds were made out to bypass the legal bars against bail in commercial quantity cases, the court rejected the petition, keeping both accused in judicial custody pending further investigation.