Bengaluru Court Rejects Bail to Srijith S in Commercial Quantity MDMA and Ganja Seizure Case Under NDPS Act

In a significant judicial order delivered on July 26, 2022, the XXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, LL.M., rejected the bail petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6835/2022. The court refused to grant regular bail to Srijith S (Accused No. 2) in connection with Crime No. 316/2022 registered by the Madanayakanahalli Police Station for offences punishable under Section 22(b) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

Prosecution Allegations and Procedural History

The criminal proceedings were set into motion following a report submitted by the Police Inspector (PI) of Madanayakanahalli Police Station. According to the prosecution case, on June 29, 2022, at approximately 7:00 PM, the complainant PI received credible information while present at the police station that two individuals were selling MDMA to customers on a mud road leading from a eucalyptus tree bush towards Jnanajyothinagar, near the Acharya College subway in Thamanahalli village, Bengaluru.

After intimating the credible information to his superior officer and obtaining permission to conduct a raid, the PI arranged a raiding team and visited the spot along with staff and panchas. The police team identified and apprehended two suspect individuals at the scene, arrayed as Accused Nos. 1 and 2. Upon enquiry, they revealed their identities, with Accused No. 2 identified as Srijith S, aged about 24 years, residing at Nair Community, No. 5/2405, Upaas Kaavadiar, near Vindsor Hotel, Trivandrum, Kerala State.

A personal search of the apprehended accused led to the recovery and seizure of 52 grams of MDMA and 19 grams of ganja. The contraband was seized under a detailed spot seizure mahazar. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were arrested and a report was submitted to the Station House Officer (SHO), forming the basis to register Crime No. 316/2022 against Accused Nos. 1 to 4 under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act. The arrested persons were produced before the court and remanded to judicial custody. Accused No. 2 subsequently filed the present bail application.

Arguments Submitted by Defence Counsel

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri M.N., vehemently argued for the grant of regular bail on the following grounds:

Procedural Impropriety: The defence contended that search and seizure were vitiated by inherent procedural impropriety and that mandatory statutory provisions of law were not complied with, raising serious doubts about the credibility of the investigation.
Claim of Non-Involvement: It was submitted that the petitioner was innocent, a law-abiding citizen, falsely implicated by the police, and had no connection whatsoever to the drugs seized.
Investigation and Custody: Counsel argued that the major portion of the investigation was concluded, further custodial interrogation was not warranted, and continued detention in Central Prison would ruin the young petitioner’s career among other criminals.
Quantity Contention: The defence urged that the seized contraband was not of commercial quantity and that the petitioner, being a permanent resident of Trivandrum, Kerala, was ready to abide by any conditions and furnish adequate sureties.

Prosecution Objections

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail petition, advancing the following arguments:

Commercial Quantity Seizure: The investigating agency seized 52 grams of MDMA along with 19 grams of ganja from the possession of Accused Nos. 1 and 2. Under statutory specifications, 10 grams of MDMA constitutes a commercial quantity, thereby making the 52-gram recovery a commercial haul attracting strict statutory bars.
Severity of Sentence: The offence carries rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years and may extend up to 20 years, along with a fine.
Public Interest and Risk of Recidivism: The prosecution submitted that the investigation was ongoing and expressed grave apprehension that if released on bail, the petitioner would re-engage in drug trafficking, ruin the careers of the younger generation, tamper with prosecution witnesses, and abscond.

Judicial Analysis and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Special Court examined the prosecution papers and rival contentions to decide Point No. 1: whether the petitioner made out sufficient grounds for bail.

1. Classification of Contraband Quantities

The court referred to Notification S.O. 1055(E) dated October 19, 2001, issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue). Under Entry Sl. No. 134:

Small Quantity for MDMA: Up to 0.5 grams.
Commercial Quantity for MDMA: 10 grams or more.

Under Entry Sl. No. 55:

Small Quantity for Ganja: Up to 1,000 grams (1 kg).
Commercial Quantity for Ganja: 20 kilograms or more.

The court observed that while the 19 grams of ganja constituted a small quantity, the recovery of 52 grams of MDMA far exceeded the 10-gram commercial threshold, firmly categorizing the seized contraband as a commercial quantity.

2. Legal Bar Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and Precedents

The court emphasized that for commercial quantities, Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes mandatory twin conditions: bail cannot be granted unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

To outline the legal standard, Special Judge Smt. B.S. Jayashree referred to authoritative Supreme Court precedents:

Union of India v. Mohammed Nawaz Khan (Crl. Appeal No. 1043/2021, dated Sept 22, 2021): The Apex Court highlighted that stringent parameters are prescribed under the NDPS Act to curb drug trafficking. The Supreme Court set aside a High Court bail order, observing that findings on lack of direct physical possession or procedural arguments under Section 42 do not absolve courts from rigorous scrutiny under Section 37(1)(b)(ii).
State of Kerala v. Rajesh [(2020) 12 SCC 122]: The Supreme Court held that “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds and requires substantial probable causes for believing the accused is not guilty. The Apex Court cautioned that a liberal approach in granting bail under the NDPS Act is completely uncalled for.
State of M.P. v. Kajad [(2001) 7 SCC 673]: The Supreme Court affirmed that under Section 37(1)(b)(ii), negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception.
Babua v. State of Orissa [(2001) 2 SCC 566]: The Apex Court ruled that individual liberty must be balanced against societal interest. Given the lethal impact of drug trafficking on society, keeping accused persons behind bars during trial is justified when commercial contraband is involved.

3. Application of Law to Present Facts

Applying these dictums, the court noted that 52 grams of MDMA and 19 grams of ganja were seized directly from the petitioner and Accused No. 1 under a spot panchanama, demonstrating conscious possession. The defence failed to place any material on record to demonstrate that the petitioner was not in possession of the contraband at the time of search and apprehension.

Finding prima facie material establishing the petitioner’s involvement in a commercial quantity drug offence, the court held that the mandatory conditions under Section 37 were not satisfied. It remains a settled principle of law that an order granting or refusing bail does not amount to a final determination of guilt or innocence, which remains subject to full-fledged trial.

Final Order

Answering Point No. 1 in the negative, Special Judge Smt. B.S. Jayashree formally rejected the bail petition on July 26, 2022:

The petition filed by the petitioner, Srijith S, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.