Rigorous Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act Reinforced as Accused Held in ‘Conscious Possession’ of LSD and MDMA
In a significant order reinforcing the stringent bail provisions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, the XXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS) in Bengaluru, SMT. B.S. Jayashree, rejected the bail petition filed by two individuals, Akil Raj and Sooraj, who were arrested in connection with the seizure of commercial quantities of LSD and MDMA.
The bail application, filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), sought the release of the petitioners, Akil Raj (24) and Sooraj (29), who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 28/2024 registered at the Indiranagar Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. The order, dated March 21, 2024, meticulously scrutinizes the facts of the case against the backdrop of critical Supreme Court rulings governing bail in commercial quantity drug offences.
The Prosecution’s Case and Grounds for Opposition
The case originated from a raid conducted by the Police Inspector (PI) of Indiranagar PS on February 13, 2024, following a credible tip-off regarding the illegal sale of contraband near the BDA complex compound in Indiranagar. The police apprehended the three suspected persons, including the petitioners, after a decoy operation confirmed they were possessing and selling narcotic articles.
During the personal search and subsequent mahazar, the Investigating Officer (I.O.) seized a total of 0.140 grams of LSD strips and 11 grams of MDMA.
Opposing the bail plea, the prosecution contended that the seized quantities were of a commercial nature, a fact the court later confirmed. Under the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E) dated 19.10.2001, the commercial quantity for MDMA is defined as 10 grams, and for LSD, it is 0.1 gram. Since 11 grams of MDMA and 0.140 grams of LSD were seized, the quantities clearly exceed the commercial threshold, automatically attracting the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The prosecution further argued that the petitioners were habitual drug dealers, a prima facie case was established against them, and their release on bail would lead them to continue their illicit trade, abscond, and tamper with prosecution evidence.
The Stringent Requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
In her detailed order, the Special Judge addressed the central question of whether the petitioners had made out sufficient grounds for bail. She relied heavily on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Apex Court, specifically referencing State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh in (2020) 12 SCC 122 and Union of India through NCB., Lucknow Vs., Mohammed Nawaz Khan in Crl.Appeal No.1043/2021.
The court noted that Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes two mandatory and stringent conditions for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities:
- 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.
Citing the Rajesh judgment, the court underlined that “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds and requires a substantial probable cause for believing the accused is innocent. The Mohammed Nawaz Khan case further clarified that even the absence of recovery from the accused’s person is not, by itself, a sufficient ground to fulfill the parameters of Section 37(1)(b).
Court’s Finding and Conclusion
Applying these judicial mandates, the court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution established a prima facie case against the petitioners. The seized quantities of both MDMA (11 grams against a commercial limit of 10 grams) and LSD (0.140 grams against a commercial limit of 0.1 gram) were definitively of commercial quantity.
Crucially, the court found that the contraband was seized from the “conscious possession” of the petitioners and the other accused at the time of their apprehension. The petitioners’ counsel failed to place any material before the court to demonstrate that the accused were not involved in the trade of contraband.
In conclusion, the court held that the mandatory “twin conditions” prescribed under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act were not satisfied. The judicial satisfaction required—that there are reasonable grounds for believing the petitioners are not guilty and are not likely to commit any offence while on bail—could not be reached based on the material on record.
Consequently, the petition filed by Akil Raj and Sooraj under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was rejected. The order unequivocally highlights the judiciary’s firm stance against drug trafficking and the necessity of adhering strictly to the deterrent provisions of the NDPS Act when commercial quantities of psychotropic substances are involved. The accused remain in custody as the legal process continues.