Bengaluru Court Denies Bail to Abhay J. Adikari Accused in MDMA Seizure Case, Citing Strict NDPS Act Conditions

Judge Holds Prima Facie Case Established for Commercial Quantity of Ecstasy Pills, Applying Supreme Court Mandate

On April 5, 2024, the XXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS) in Bengaluru, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, rejected the regular bail petition filed by Abhay J. Adikari (Accused No. 1). The petition, filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), sought bail in connection with Cr. No. 128/2024 registered by Indiranagar Police Station (initially reported by Hennur Police Station, CCB), for offences punishable under Section 8(c) and Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

The Court’s denial was rooted in the finding that the quantity of the seized drug, MDMA (Ecstasy pills), amounted to a commercial quantity, thereby activating the stringent bail restrictions mandated by Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The Prosecution’s Case and Allegations

The criminal law was set into motion by a Police Inspector (PI) from the Central Crime Branch (CCB). The core allegations, detailed in the First Information Report (FIR), are as follows:

Credible Information: On March 13, 2024, at approximately 3:30 PM, the PI received specific information that a person was actively selling MDMA ecstasy pills to the public near the BBMP office on Horamavu main road, within the limits of Hennur Police Station.
Raid and Seizure: After informing a higher officer (ACP) and obtaining permission, the PI, along with staff and independent witnesses (panchas), proceeded to the spot. The suspect, identified as the petitioner, was apprehended and searched.
Contraband Seized: Upon search, the police seized 22.50 grams of MDMA ecstasy pills from the accused person’s conscious possession.
Further Revelation: During interrogation, Accused No. 1 allegedly revealed that he had procured the contraband from another individual named “Kenadi @ Ken.”
Charges: The accused was arrested and charged under Section 8(c) (prohibiting production, sale, purchase, etc., of narcotic drugs) and Section 22(c) (imposing punishment for offenses involving commercial quantity of psychotropic substances) of the NDPS Act. Section 22(c) is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years, which may extend up to twenty years, and a fine.

Arguments for and Against Bail

Petitioner’s Grounds (Accused No. 1)

The counsel for the petitioner, Sri. RM, argued that:

The petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated in the case.
The offences are non-bailable but not punishable with death or life imprisonment.
The contraband seized was not commercial quantity.
The petitioner is a permanent resident with no criminal antecedent and was willing to abide by any court conditions and furnish surety.

Prosecution’s Objections

The Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, stating:

A prima facie case exists against the petitioner, evidenced by the seizure of 22.50 grams of MDMA ecstasy tablets.
The punishment for the alleged offence is severe (up to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment).
The accused is a habitual drug dealer, and if released, he is likely to continue the profession of narcotic drug selling, abscond, and tamper with prosecution evidence.

The Court’s Decisive Reasoning

The Court’s findings, which led to the denial of bail, were heavily influenced by the legal constraints of the NDPS Act and a guiding judgment from the Supreme Court.

1. The Twin Conditions of Section 37

The Court cited the recent landmark Supreme Court judgment in State of Kerala vs. Rajesh (2020) 12 SCC 122. This judgment emphasizes that a liberal approach to bail under the NDPS Act is “uncalled for” and reiterates the necessity of satisfying the two mandatory conditions under Section 37 for offences involving commercial quantity.

The two conditions that must be met before bail can be granted are:

The Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence.
The Court must be satisfied that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

The Supreme Court defines “reasonable grounds” as something “more than prima facie grounds,” requiring “substantial probable causes” to justify the satisfaction that the accused is not guilty.

2. The Quantity of MDMA

Although the petitioner argued the quantity was not commercial, the Court held a different view. The amount of 22.50 grams of MDMA ecstasy pills seized was deemed a commercial quantity.

Note on MDMA Classification: Under the NDPS Act, the small quantity for MDMA is 0.5 grams, while the commercial quantity is 10 grams. The seizure of 22.50 grams is more than double the commercial threshold.

3. Failure to Satisfy the Bail Conditions

The Court concluded that the seized quantity of 22.50 grams of MDMA constitutes a commercial quantity, thereby squarely attracting the rigors of Section 37.

The counsel for the petitioner failed to place any material before the court to establish that the petitioner was not engaged in the trade of contraband or that he was not guilty.
The Court found that at this stage, there is prima facie material available against the petitioner regarding the possession of a commercial quantity of contraband.

In the result, the Court ruled that the petitioner failed to satisfy the essential twin conditions of Section 37.

Court Order

Based on the reasons outlined above, the Court delivered the following order:

The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C is hereby rejected.

The order highlights the judiciary’s strict stance in cases involving the commercial trafficking of psychotropic substances, prioritizing the legislative intent to provide deterrent punishment for such offenses.