In a significant ruling highlighting the strict provisions of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the XXXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS) in Bengaluru, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by an individual accused in a large-scale international drug trafficking case involving the psychotropic substance Clonazepam.
The petition, filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) by the petitioner, Sri Ajmal Nanath Valiyatt, sought protection from arrest in connection with Cr. No. 48/1/11/2022 registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Bengaluru Zonal Unit. The charges against the petitioner fall under Section 8(c) read with Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
Allegations and Seizure Details
The case centers on a suspicious parcel intercepted at the DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd., KIA, Bengaluru, on May 7, 2022. Acting on credible information, an NCB team was formed, and the parcel, bearing waybill No. 1826193810, was examined in the presence of independent witnesses. The parcel was found to be booked by “Ajmal Nanath Valiyatt” of Kerala and was addressed to “Zainul Abid Mannan Paramban” in Saudi Arabia.
Upon opening, the parcel contained a brown-coloured carton box, deceptively marked as “purchased on amazon.” Inside, the investigators found six bottles of ‘Septilin tablets’ manufactured by Himalaya Drug Company. Crucially, the court record details that each of the six bottles, which had loose and unsealed lids, did not contain Septilin. Instead, they collectively housed 2,244 white-coloured Rivotril tablets.
These tablets were confirmed to contain Clonazepam, a controlled psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act. The total weight of the seized substance was recorded as 357 grams. The subsequent report from the CFSL, Hyderabad, further confirmed the presence of Clonazepam.
The Crux of the Commercial Quantity
The court heavily relied on the commercial quantity of the seized drug in its decision. As per the Ministry of Finance’s Notification S.O.1055(E) dated 19.10.2001, the demarcation for Clonazepam is:
- Small Quantity: 0.5 grams
- Commercial Quantity: 100 grams
The seized quantity of 357 grams significantly exceeds the commercial threshold, triggering the stringent bail conditions enshrined in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Petitioner’s Defense and Prosecution’s Objections
The petitioner, a salesman working at Aliya Medicals in Malappuram District, Kerala, pleaded innocence. His primary defense rested on the claim of misuse of his identity. He argued that the shop owner, one Thaha, had used his Aadhaar card without his knowledge to dispatch the banned substance, fabricating a prescription pad and medical bill in the name of Aliya Medicals. He asserted he had never been to the courier shop and was busy with his sales work.
The prosecution, represented by the Special Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the bail plea. They contended that the petitioner, in conspiracy with the medical shop owner, had sent various drugs abroad on multiple occasions, indicating an involvement in a larger drug trafficking network. The NCB highlighted the petitioner’s failure to appear for investigation despite being served summons on July 6, 2022, under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, suggesting an attempt to avoid law enforcement and indicating links to international level drug trafficking.
Court’s Analysis and Judicial Precedent
In its reasoning, the court noted that the petitioner’s plea of identity misuse, while plausible, could not be entertained at the investigation stage. The court found that the documents on record, including the waybill, established a prima facie case that the petitioner had booked the parcel.
Crucially, the court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes twin conditions for granting bail:
- The court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence.
- The court must be satisfied that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
The court cited significant Supreme Court judgments to reinforce its stand:
- Satpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2018 SAR (Criminal) 623): Reiterating that anticipatory bail cannot be granted when an accused is found in illegal possession of a commercial quantity without reference to Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- Union of India v. Mohammed Nawaz Khan (Crl. Appeal No. 1043/2021): This judgment explicitly warned against granting bail merely on the finding of ‘absence of recovery’ from the person of the accused, underscoring that the overall scrutiny required under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) remains essential.
- Union of India vs. Rattan Mallik (2009 (2) SCC 624): The finding of the absence of possession of contraband on the person of the respondent does not absolve the level of the scrutiny required under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act.
The judge concluded that based on the evidence—the petitioner’s name and address on the parcel, the commercial quantity seizure, and his non-cooperation with the NCB investigation—there were prima facie reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner booked the drug parcel.
Final Verdict
The court found that the petitioner had not made out sufficient grounds to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, particularly given the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in cases involving commercial quantities.
The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. was consequently rejected, allowing the investigation to proceed without hindrance and emphasizing the judiciary’s firm resolve against drug trafficking. The ruling serves as a stark reminder of the serious legal implications of involvement in the illicit trade of narcotic and psychotropic substances, especially when commercial quantities are involved. The ongoing investigation is expected to shed light on the deeper network connecting the medical shop owner and the international destination of the seized drugs.