Bengaluru, September 16, 2022: The XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS) in Bengaluru, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, rejected the second bail petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by three individuals accused of drug trafficking involving commercial quantities of MDMA crystals and LSD strips.
The petitioners, identified as Ajmal (27), Ranish Lathif (24), and Mohammed Shamil (24), all residents of Flat No. 805, O-Block, Platinum Apartments, H.M, Yashwanthpura, Bengaluru, were arrayed as accused Nos. 3 to 5 in Crime No. 22/2022 registered by the RMC Yard Police Station. The charges were registered for serious offenses under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 23(c), 27, 27A, 28, 29, 32B(d) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.
The Prosecution’s Case and Seizure Details
The prosecution, represented by the Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the bail plea, citing the gravity of the offences and the commercial quantity of contraband seized. The core of the allegation stems from a credible information received by the Police Inspector (PI) of CCB (W & N) on February 7, 2022, regarding the sale of contraband by four persons from Flat No. 805 in Platinum Apartment, Yeshwanthpur. The drugs, specifically MDMA crystals and LSD strips, were allegedly being sold to the public and IT/BT employees.
Acting on this information and obtaining necessary permission from the ACP, a raid was conducted. The investigating officer, along with staff and panchas, apprehended five accused persons inside the apartment. During the subsequent inquiry and search, the accused allegedly revealed a sophisticated drug trafficking operation linked to an absconding individual named Nikhil C.M., who operates from Dubai. This operation reportedly involved transacting drug trafficking business through Dark Websites, using online transactions like Bitcoin, and conveying contraband to customers in Delhi, Goa, and Gujarat. The present petitioners were reportedly responsible for conveying the contraband, receiving payments through Google Pay and other online methods, and remitting the balance profits to Nikhil C.M. The petitioners were allegedly selling one gram of MDMA crystal for Rs. 5,000/- and LSD strips at Rs. 3,000/-.
The mahazar (seizure report) recorded the apprehension of the accused and the seizure of 823 grams of MDMA crystals, 183 LSD strips (weighing 2.01 grams), six mobile phones, an electronic weighing machine, and packing materials. The seized contraband was valued by the prosecution at approximately Rs. 60 lakhs.
Petitioners’ Arguments for Bail
In their defense, the petitioners, through their counsel Sri Abhishek K., argued that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. They contested that the procedure contemplated under the NDPS Act was not followed during the recovery. They also pointed out that the investigation has concluded, and a charge sheet has been filed, arguing that their continued detention is unwarranted. Crucially, they contended that they were not arrested from the place of the alleged incident, a point the prosecution rejected as untenable. The petitioners also expressed their readiness to abide by any conditions imposed by the court, including offering surety for their due appearance.
Court’s Rationale for Rejection
The court, in its order dated September 16, 2022, meticulously considered the arguments and the legal requirements under the NDPS Act, particularly Section 37(1)(b). This section imposes stringent twin conditions for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband: the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence, and that they are not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
The court noted that as per the Ministry of Finance notification S.O. 1055(E) dated October 19, 2001, 10 grams of MDMA is considered a commercial quantity. The seizure of 823 grams of MDMA crystal and 2.01 grams of LSD strips from the petitioners’ house clearly falls within the definition of a commercial quantity. The court emphasized that the investigation papers, including bank account transaction details, prima facie indicate a monetary nexus between the petitioners and the absconding main accused, Nikhil C.M., thereby establishing their role in the crime.
Relying on landmark judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including Union of India through NCB, Lucknow vs. Mohammed Nawaz Khan and State of Kerala vs. Rajesh, the court reiterated that a liberal approach in granting bail under the NDPS Act is unwarranted. The court stressed that “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds and requires the existence of facts sufficient to justify the satisfaction that the accused is not guilty.
Given the commercial quantity of the seized drugs and the prima facie material indicating the petitioners’ involvement in illegal drug trafficking—an activity deemed lethal to society—the court concluded that the petitioners had failed to satisfy the mandatory twin conditions of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act. The court firmly stated that the materials collected indicate the petitioners’ role in the crime and held that the prayer for bail could not be entertained.
Accordingly, the bail petition (Crl. Misc. No. 8325/2022) was rejected.
This decision underscores the judiciary’s firm stance in combating drug-related offenses, particularly those involving commercial quantities, aligning with the deterrent objectives of the NDPS Act.