The XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS cases in Bengaluru, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, has officially rejected the bail petition of Vasim Akram, identified as Accused No. 2, in a significant narcotics trafficking case involving both MDMA and Ganja. The court’s decision underscores the stringent legal framework surrounding the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, particularly when the quantity of seized substances meets the threshold for commercial classification.
Background of the Case and Police Raid
The criminal proceedings were initiated following a proactive operation by the Marathahalli Police Station. On December 7, 2022, acting on credible intelligence, a police team led by a Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) conducted a raid near Manikanta Bakery at 1st Cross, Marathahalli. The intelligence suggested that a group of individuals was covertly selling prohibited narcotics, specifically Ganja and MDMA crystals, to the general public.
Upon arriving at the scene, the law enforcement team apprehended three individuals: Syed Mohammed Hilal, Vasim Akram (the petitioner), and Adesh Jaiswal. During the subsequent search and seizure procedure, the police recovered a substantial amount of contraband. Specifically, Accused No. 1 was found with 1.2 kilograms of Ganja, the petitioner (Vasim Akram) was found in possession of 11 grams of MDMA, and Accused No. 3 possessed 1.1 kilograms of Ganja.
The prosecution highlighted that the total recovery amounted to 2.3 kilograms of Ganja and 11 grams of MDMA. Under the current legal framework, 10 grams of MDMA is classified as a commercial quantity, making the 11 grams seized a critical factor in the court’s deliberation.
Legal Arguments Presented by the Petitioner
Vasim Akram, represented by his legal counsel, moved the petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs the powers of the High Court or Court of Session regarding bail. The defense argued that the petitioner was a law-abiding citizen who had been falsely implicated in the case.
Key points raised by the defense included:
- Procedural Non-compliance: The defense claimed that the mandatory procedures for search and seizure stipulated under the NDPS Act were not strictly followed by the investigating officers.
- Nature of the Contraband: It was argued that the quantity of Ganja seized from the petitioner was “intermediary” and not commercial.
- Personal Circumstances: The petitioner’s counsel emphasized that Akram is a permanent resident of Bengaluru and the sole breadwinner for his family. They argued that further custodial interrogation was unnecessary as the investigation was largely complete.
Prosecution Opposes Bail Citing Public Safety
The Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail plea, emphasizing the gravity of the charges. The prosecution pointed out that the accused were caught red-handed in a joint operation. They argued that if the petitioner were released, there was a high probability of him absconding or tampering with evidence.
Furthermore, the prosecution relied heavily on the fact that the MDMA seized—11 grams—exceeded the 10-gram threshold for “commercial quantity” as defined by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. Under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, the punishment for possessing a commercial quantity can extend to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment, reflecting the legislature’s intent to treat such offenses with extreme severity.
The Court’s Rationale and Interpretation of Section 37
In its detailed order, the court addressed the defense’s attempt to isolate the individual quantities found on each accused. Judge B.S. Jayashree noted that because the three accused were found together in a single spot during the commission of the alleged trade, the principle of “joint possession” must be considered.
The court’s primary focus remained on Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. This section imposes a “reverse burden” or a “dual condition” for 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 offense.
- The Court must be satisfied that the accused is not likely to commit any offense while on bail.
The Judge cited several landmark judgments from the Supreme Court of India, including State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh and Union of India Vs. Mohammed Nawaz Khan. These precedents establish that a “liberal approach” in NDPS bail matters is uncalled for. The Supreme Court has consistently held that “reasonable grounds” means something more than just a prima facie case; it requires substantial evidence to believe in the innocence of the accused.
Conclusion of the Bail Order
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide any material evidence to suggest his innocence or to counter the prosecution’s claim of conscious possession of the contraband. Given that the MDMA quantity was commercial, the stringent bars of Section 37 were fully applicable.
The court concluded that the interests of society must be balanced against the liberty of the individual. In cases involving lethal substances that threaten social stability, the safety of the public takes precedence. Consequently, the court found no sufficient grounds to enlarge Vasim Akram on bail and rejected the petition.
Vasim Akram remains in judicial custody as the trial proceedings continue under the provisions of Section 8(c), Section 20(ii)(B), and Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.