Executive Summary of the Ruling
The XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS Cases at Bengaluru, presided over by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, rejected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 6157/2022 on July 5, 2022. The court denied regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to Dheeraj Thekkuveettil (Accused No. 5), a 28-year-old native of Kozhikode, Kerala.
The petitioner was arrested in connection with Crime No. 125/2020 registered by the Soladevanahalli Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b), 22(b), and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The Special Court rejected the bail plea primarily due to the seizure of commercial quantities of synthetic psychotropic substances, the petitioner’s alleged role as the primary supplier sourcing drugs internationally, and the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Case Overview and Factual Background
The Police Raid and Initial Seizures
On July 28, 2020, the Police Sub-Inspector of Soladevanahalli Police Station received credible information regarding the possession and trafficking of prohibited narcotics by Kerala-based individuals operating from Plot No. S1, 3rd Floor, Platinum Enclave, Phase 1, Kereguddadahalli, Bengaluru.
After notifying superior officers, a police team accompanied by independent panchas raided the premises at approximately 1:15 PM. The police intercepted four individuals sitting on a sofa discussing a drug deal. Individual personal searches of Accused Nos. 1 to 4 yielded a substantial stash of illicit drugs:
- Accused No. 1: 28 grams of LSD strips (2,000 stamps) and 15 ecstasy pills (6 grams)
- Accused No. 2: 110 grams of MDMA crystals
- Accused No. 3: 5 kilograms of ganja
- Accused No. 4: Weighing scale, packing materials, and mobile phones
Investigation and Apprehension of Accused No. 5
Interrogation of Accused Nos. 1 to 4 revealed that Dheeraj Thekkuveettil (Accused No. 5) and Accused No. 6 were the primary masterminds and suppliers behind the syndicate. The investigating agency discovered that:
- Accused No. 5 sourced psychotropic substances from foreign countries via international postal services.
- The drugs were distributed to Accused Nos. 1 to 4 for retail distribution at high-profile venue parties, including events at Bengaluru Palace Grounds and Pebbles Pub.
- Financial transactions were conducted through digital payment modes, including Google Pay, PhonePe, and net banking.
Because Accused No. 5 went into hiding, the investigating agency issued a Lookout Circular (LOC). On June 10, 2022, at 11:00 AM, immigration officials detained Dheeraj Thekkuveettil at the Indira Gandhi International Airport Immigration Center in Delhi. He was subsequently arrested, brought to Bengaluru under a transit warrant, and remanded to judicial custody after police interrogation.
Legal Arguments Advanced
Submissions by the Petitioner
Advocate Sri K.S.V., appearing for the petitioner, presented the following arguments:
- False Implication: The petitioner maintained that he was innocent and falsely implicated without direct physical recovery from his person at the initial raid scene.
- Non-Commercial Claims: The defense contended that the quantities seized were not commercial and that major investigation procedures were complete.
- Procedural Defects: The defense argued that mandatory search and seizure procedures under the NDPS Act were violated.
- Personal Circumstances: The petitioner contended that prolonged detention alongside hardened criminals in central prison would damage his career and offered to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.
Objections by the Prosecution
The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea on the following grounds:
- Commercial Quantities: The seized contraband included 110 grams of MDMA crystals and 28 grams of LSD, both far exceeding the statutory commercial quantity limits.
- Key Role as International Supplier: Accused No. 5 was the syndicate leader who ordered drugs from foreign sources via post and financed the distribution network through digital wallets.
- Severity of Punishment: Offences involving commercial quantities of psychotropic substances under Section 22(c) carry mandatory minimum rigorous imprisonment of 10 years, extendable up to 20 years, along with heavy fines.
- Flight Risk and Recidivism: Given that the petitioner was apprehended at an international airport while fleeing under a Lookout Circular, releasing him on bail would pose an extreme risk of absconding and witness tampering.
Detailed Judicial Reasoning and Findings
1. Statutory Thresholds under Notification S.O.1055(E)
The Special Court evaluated the contraband threshold limits prescribed under Ministry of Finance Notification S.O.1055(E) dated October 19, 2001:
- MDMA (Entry No. 134): Commercial quantity starts at 10 grams. The total MDMA seized (110 grams) was 11 times the commercial threshold.
- LSD (Entry No. 133): Commercial quantity starts at 0.1 gram. The total LSD seized (28 grams) was 280 times the commercial threshold.
| Substance | Small Quantity Threshold | Commercial Quantity Threshold | Seized Quantity in Case | Legal Category |
| LSD | Up to 0.002 g | 0.1 g | 28 g (2,000 stamps) | Commercial |
| MDMA | Up to 0.5 g | 10 g | 110 g | Commercial |
| Ganja | Up to 1 kg | 20 kg | 5 kg | Intermediate |
2. Application of Rigorous Section 37 Conditions
The court held that because commercial quantities of MDMA and LSD were seized from the syndicate, the mandatory conditions under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act applied. Under this provision, bail cannot be granted unless the court is satisfied that:
- There exist reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence.
- The accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
3. Binding Judicial Precedents Cited
The Special Judge relied on landmark Supreme Court decisions governing bail in commercial quantity NDPS cases:
- Union of India v. Mohammed Nawaz Khan (2021) / Crl. Appeal No. 1043/2021: The Supreme Court held that the absence of direct physical recovery from an accused person does not automatically entitle them to bail. Where call detail records (CDR), co-accused statements, financial links, and concealment establish a prima facie connection, the stringent requirements of Section 37 must be satisfied.
- State of Kerala v. Rajesh (2020) 12 SCC 122: The Apex Court clarified that “reasonable grounds” mean something more than prima facie grounds; it requires substantial probable cause to believe the accused is innocent. A liberal approach to bail under the NDPS Act is impermissible.
- State of M.P. v. Kajad (2001) 7 SCC 673: The Supreme Court observed that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, refusal of bail is the statutory rule and grant of bail is a rare exception.
- Babua v. State of Orissa (2001) 2 SCC 566: The Apex Court held that individual liberty must be balanced against societal interest, emphasizing that illicit drug trafficking poses a severe threat to society that justifies pre-trial detention.
4. Prima Facie Case and Flight Risk
The court observed that digital payment records, call detail records, co-accused disclosures, and the petitioner’s apprehension at Delhi International Airport under a Lookout Circular established strong prima facie evidence of his involvement as an international drug supplier.
Final Order
The Special Court answered Point No. 1 in the negative and formally rejected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 6157/2022.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| FINAL ORDER |
| |
| The petition filed by the petitioner (Accused No. 5) under Section |
| 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby REJECTED. |
| |
| Pronounced in Open Court on July 5, 2022. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+