Bengaluru, January 13, 2023 – In a strict application of the stringent provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Smt. B.S. Jayashree, rejected the bail petition filed by Ashish Varma (24), who was arrested in connection with the seizure of commercial quantities of MDMA and Ganja.
The order, issued in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 12512/2022, pertains to Crime No. 381/2022 registered at the Byadarahalli Police Station for offenses punishable under Sections 20(b), 8(c), 22(c), and 23(c) of the NDPS Act.
Details of the Seizure and Arrest
According to the prosecution’s case, the incident took place on August 9, 2022. The Sub-Inspector of Police (PSI) from Byadarahalli P.S. received credible information at approximately 3:30 PM regarding the sale of Ganja and MDMA near BBMP Park on Dwarakavasa Road, BEL I Stage, Bharathnagar, Bengaluru.
After informing his superior and obtaining necessary permission, the police team, along with panchas and investigation tools, conducted a raid at the location around 4:30 PM. They apprehended the suspected persons, one of whom was the petitioner, Ashish Varma (Accused No. 1).
Upon personal search and subsequent detailed mahazar (seizure report), the investigating agency confiscated:
- 52 Grams of MDMA
- 1 Kilogram and 50 Grams of Ganja
Both Ashish Varma and the co-accused were arrested and subsequently remanded to judicial custody.
Defense and Prosecution Arguments
The petitioner’s counsel, represented by Sri NN, argued that Ashish Varma was innocent, falsely implicated, and a law-abiding citizen. The defense contended that the procedures mandated under the NDPS Act were not properly followed during the recovery process. Furthermore, it was argued that the major portion of the investigation was concluded, and custodial interrogation was no longer necessary. The defense also made a general argument that the seized quantity was less than a commercial quantity, although this was later contradicted by the court’s detailed analysis. The petitioner offered to abide by any conditions imposed by the court and furnish surety.
The prosecution, represented by the Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the bail plea. Their objections rested on critical points:
- Commercial Quantity: The seized narcotics—52 grams of MDMA and 1 Kg 50 grams of Ganja—constituted a commercial quantity, triggering the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- Deterrent Punishment: The offenses are punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term extending up to 10 years and a fine.
- Risk to Society: The prosecution highlighted the specific plea that the petitioner was involved in selling drugs to the younger generation, which could “ruin the career of younger generation.”
- Risk of Tampering: The petitioner’s release could lead to him tampering with prosecution witnesses or engaging in similar offenses.
Court’s Strict Application of NDPS Law
In its detailed reasoning, the court noted that the seizure involved 52 grams of MDMA. It referenced the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O. 1055(E) dated October 19, 2001, which specifies that 10 grams of MDMA constitutes a commercial quantity. Given that 52 grams were seized, the court confirmed that the quantity was indeed commercial.
The court emphasized the deterrent nature of the NDPS Act and relied heavily on a series of landmark judgments from the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, particularly focusing on the mandatory conditions set forth in Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act.
The key legal principles highlighted were:
- Stringent Parameters: Citing Union of India through NCB., Lucknow Vs. Mohammed Nawaz Khan (2021), the court underscored that stringent parameters for bail under the NDPS Act are prescribed to curb the menace of drug-trafficking.
- Two-Fold Test: For granting bail in commercial quantity cases, the court must be satisfied on two conditions:
- There are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence.
- The accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
- “Reasonable Grounds”: Referencing State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh (2020), the court clarified that “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds and requires substantial probable cause to believe the accused is innocent. The court stressed that a “liberal approach” in NDPS bail matters is uncalled for.
- Negation of Bail is the Rule: Quoting State of MP Vs. Kajad (2001), the court reiterated the well-established principle: “Negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception” under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act.
Conclusion and Ruling
Applying these rigorous legal standards to the facts of the case, the Judge observed that there was prima facie material available against Ashish Varma concerning the conscious possession of a commercial quantity of MDMA and Ganja. The court held that the petitioner failed to place any material before it to satisfy the two mandatory conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act—namely, that there were reasonable grounds to believe he was not guilty, and that he was unlikely to commit another offense while on bail.
In its final decision, the court concluded: “The petitioner herein has not made out any grounds to entertain his plea for bail.”
Accordingly, the petition filed by Ashish Varma under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was rejected, ensuring his continued judicial custody pending trial. The order serves as a reminder of the strict judicial stance against drug-related offenses involving commercial quantities in India.