The XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru (CCH-35), presided over by Sri G. Raghavendra, B.Sc., LL.B., delivered a judicial order on April 8, 2024, allowing a regular bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The ruling in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3058/2024 extended regular bail protection to Syed Shoaib @ Shoaib (Accused No. 2) in connection with Crime No. 9/2024 registered by the R.T. Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru City. The petitioner faced prosecution for alleged offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), involving the alleged possession and distribution of commercial quantities of synthetic psychotropic substances.

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from intelligence reports and a subsequent raid conducted by the R.T. Nagar Police Station:

• Initial Raid and Seizure from Accused No. 1: On January 9, 2024, at approximately 5:00 PM, the Police Sub-Inspector of R.T. Nagar Police Station received credible information regarding a person vending narcotic substances in the vacant ground at Matadahalli. After obtaining written permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, J.C. Nagara Sub-division, the police team conducted a raid and apprehended Accused No. 1. In the presence of the ACP, search operations yielded 50 grams of MDMA crystals, which constituted a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act (where 10 grams and above is classified as commercial quantity).
• Implication of Petitioner (Accused No. 2): During subsequent interrogation, Accused No. 1 gave a voluntary statement claiming that he had purchased the narcotic drug a few days prior from the petitioner, Syed Shoaib @ Shoaib (Accused No. 2). Based on this statement, the petitioner was detained at the Flower Market on Bellary Road and produced before the Investigating Officer on March 15, 2024. The petitioner’s voluntary statement noted that he and Accused No. 1 were friends and that in January 2024, he had accompanied Accused No. 1 near Banasawadi where Accused No. 1 allegedly procured MDMA from unknown third parties.

Details of the Petitioner

• Name: Syed Shoaib @ Shoaib (Petitioner / Accused No. 2)
• Father’s Name: Syed Afroaz
• Age: About 27 years
• Residential Address: No. 7, 2nd Cross, 5th Main Road, Vasanthappa Block, R.T. Nagar, Bengaluru – 560032.
• Legal Representation: Sri Harish Kumar M.R., Advocate

Submissions Advanced by the Parties

On Behalf of the Petitioner

1. Complete Innocence and Absence of Recovery: The defense maintained that the petitioner was entirely innocent, had been falsely implicated solely on the basis of the confessional and co-accused statement of Accused No. 1, and that no contraband or incriminating material whatsoever was recovered from his physical possession.
2. Prior Cases and Bail Status: Acknowledging prior criminal cases cited by the prosecution (Crime No. 304/2023 under Sections 353, 307, 120B IPC and Section 25 Arms Act, and Crime No. 157/2019 under Sections 399 and 402 IPC), the petitioner pointed out that he had already been duly enlarged on bail in all of those matters.

On Behalf of the Respondent (State)

1. Severity of Commercial Quantity: The learned Public Prosecutor filed formal written objections and the Investigating Officer’s report, arguing that the case involved 50 grams of MDMA, which exceeds the commercial threshold of 10 grams, thereby attracting the rigorous statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
2. Risk of Abscondence and Recidivism: The state contended that given the petitioner’s involvement in prior serious crimes, enlarging him on bail could lead to tampering with witnesses, absconding from justice, or committing similar offences.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

Upon evaluating the records, case diary, and statutory provisions, Judge G. Raghavendra recorded definitive findings on Point No. 1:

1. Scrutiny Under Section 37 NDPS Act: The court acknowledged that Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates twin conditions for offences involving commercial quantities—requiring reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
2. Lack of Direct Evidence and Recovery: The Special Judge observed that apart from the uncorroborated statement of co-accused Accused No. 1 linking the petitioner to the procurement, there was no other independent or direct incriminating evidence against Accused No. 2, and crucially, zero contraband was recovered from him.
3. Addressing Prosecution Apprehensions: While noting the prosecution’s concerns regarding past criminal history, the court observed that the petitioner had already secured bail in those antecedent cases, and any remaining apprehensions regarding trial attendance, cooperation, and non-recidivism could be fully mitigated by imposing stringent conditions under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

Final Regular Bail Order and Conditions Imposed

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, the Special NDPS Court allowed the petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

The court directed that Syed Shoaib @ Shoaib (Accused No. 2) be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No. 9/2024 of R.T. Nagar Police Station upon executing a personal bond for ₹50,000/- with one surety for the like sum, subject to the following strict conditions:

• The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
• He shall cooperate fully with the Investigating Officer for the ongoing investigation.
• He shall regularly appear before the court on all hearing dates.
• He shall produce a copy of his Aadhaar card before the court.
• He shall not commit any offences similar to the offences of which he is accused or any other criminal offences.
• Breach of any of the aforesaid conditions shall entail immediate cancellation of bail.