BENGALURU – A Special Court in Bengaluru has rejected the bail plea of 27-year-old Harsha, an accused in a significant narcotics distribution network involving LSD strips, MDMA, and hashish oil. The XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS cases, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, passed the order on June 29, 2022, citing the gravity of the offences and the commercial quantity of the contraband seized.
Case Background and Arrest
The case, registered under Crime No. 171/2022 by the K.S. Layout Police Station, originated from a successful raid conducted by the Central Crime Branch (CCB) on May 22, 2022. Acting on credible information regarding illegal drug possession at a residence in Kumaraswamy Layout, the CCB apprehended two primary suspects, Surendra and Rajesh (Accused Nos. 1 and 2).
During the initial raid, officers seized 5 kilograms of ganja, 250 grams of hashish oil, and 20 LSD strips weighing 0.19 grams. Interrogation of these suspects led the police to the wider network, including Harsha (Accused No. 5). Based on voluntary statements and further investigation, Harsha was arrested on June 7, 2022. From his possession, the police recovered 30 grams of hash oil and 130 grams of ganja. More importantly, Harsha’s statements led the police to Accused No. 6, from whom an additional 15 grams of MDMA and over 4 kilograms of ganja were seized.
The Prosecution’s Arguments
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application, highlighting that Harsha was not merely a consumer but a vital link in a professional drug trafficking ring. The prosecution presented evidence from the Case Diary, including digital footprints of financial transactions via PhonePe between Harsha and his co-accused.
The state argued that the total recovery from the syndicate included commercial quantities of LSD and MDMA. Under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1989, commercial quantities trigger stringent bail conditions under Section 37, where the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty.
Defense Claims of Innocence
Harsha’s legal counsel argued that the petitioner was a law-abiding citizen with no prior criminal record. The defense contended that the drugs were “implanted” and that Harsha was arrested solely based on the voluntary statements of other accused persons, which they claimed lacked evidentiary value at the bail stage. The counsel further argued that Harsha was the sole breadwinner of his family and sought a liberal approach from the court, citing various precedents from the Bombay and Madhya Pradesh High Courts.
The Court’s Detailed Reasoning
The court meticulously analyzed the statutory definitions of “small” and “commercial” quantities. It noted that for MDMA, anything over 10 grams is considered a commercial quantity. In this case, 15 grams were recovered from the immediate associate linked by Harsha’s statement. Similarly, for LSD, 0.1 gram constitutes a commercial quantity, whereas 0.19 grams were seized in this investigation.
Judge B.S. Jayashree emphasized that the NDPS Act was designed to provide deterrent punishment to curb the menace of drug trafficking. Referring to recent Supreme Court rulings, including Union of India vs. Mohammed Nawaz Khan and State of Kerala vs. Rajesh, the court noted that “reasonable grounds” means more than just a prima facie case; it requires a substantial belief that the accused is not guilty.
The court observed that the investigation revealed Harsha was purchasing drugs from Accused No. 6 and selling them through Accused Nos. 1 and 2 at higher prices. The presence of financial transaction records through digital payment platforms provided a “substantial probable cause” linking Harsha to the illegal trade.
The Final Order
The court concluded that since the investigation was still in progress and the suppliers of the narcotics were yet to be fully identified and apprehended, releasing the petitioner could hamper the probe. The court highlighted that the interest of society in being protected from lethal drug activities outweighs the individual liberty of the accused in cases involving commercial quantities.
“The enunciation of law makes it clear that no person shall be granted bail unless the court is satisfied that the petitioner is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail,” the Judge noted. Finding no such grounds, the court rejected Harsha’s petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
This ruling underscores the rigid stance of the Bengaluru judiciary against the rising tide of synthetic drugs in the city, particularly regarding the distribution of commercial quantities of LSD and MDMA.