The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances in Bengaluru has rejected the bail application of Yasin Pasha, a 23-year-old resident of Jayanagara, who was arrested for allegedly possessing and attempting to sell MDMA near Hombegowda Ground. The court, presided over by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS cases, ruled that the quantity of the synthetic drug seized was a “commercial quantity,” thereby invoking the stringent restrictive parameters for bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The petitioner, Yasin Pasha, had been in judicial custody following his arrest by the Wilson Garden Police in December 2022. The case was registered under Section 8(c) and Section 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Section 8(c) prohibits the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consumption, import, and export of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, while Section 22(b) provides for the punishment for contravention in relation to psychotropic substances involving quantities greater than small but less than commercial, or in this specific case, commercial quantities based on weight.

Details of the Arrest and Seizure

According to the prosecution’s case, the Wilson Garden Police received credible information on December 21, 2022, regarding two individuals selling narcotics to the public near Hombegowda Ground. Acting on this tip-off, the police team conducted a raid and apprehended Yasin Pasha and his co-accused, Syed Sadiq.

Upon being apprehended, the duo was found in possession of plastic covers containing a crystalline substance. A field enquiry and subsequent weighing revealed that the accused were carrying 18 grams of MDMA. The police seized the contraband along with 1,600 Rupees in cash under a detailed mahazar.

Arguments Presented by the Petitioner and the Prosecution

The counsel for Yasin Pasha argued that the petitioner was an innocent youth who had been falsely implicated by the police. The defense contended that the mandatory procedures for search and seizure prescribed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, were not followed. Furthermore, the defense argued that since the investigation was largely complete, custodial interrogation was no longer necessary and the petitioner, being a permanent resident of Bengaluru, was not a flight risk.

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail plea, emphasizing the gravity of the offense. The prosecution highlighted that 18 grams of MDMA is classified as a commercial quantity under the law. They argued that drug trafficking poses a significant threat to the younger generation and that releasing the accused at this stage would allow him to tamper with witnesses or engage in similar illegal activities.

The Commercial Quantity Threshold and Section 37

A central point in the court’s decision was the classification of the drug quantity. Under the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E), the “commercial quantity” threshold for MDMA is set at 10 grams. Since the police recovered 18 grams from the conscious possession of the accused, the court classified it as a commercial quantity.

Judge B.S. Jayashree referred to the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. This section mandates that for offenses involving commercial quantities, bail can only be granted if the court is satisfied that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail.

The court cited several landmark judgments from the Supreme Court of India, including the case of Union of India vs. Mohammed Nawaz Khan (2021) and State of Kerala vs. Rajesh (2020). These rulings clarify that “reasonable grounds” mean something more than a mere prima facie case; they require substantial probable causes to believe the accused is innocent.

Balancing Personal Liberty with Societal Interest

In the detailed order, the court emphasized that in cases involving narcotics, the liberty of an individual must be balanced against the larger interest of society. The judge observed that drug trafficking is a lethal menace that ruins lives and careers, particularly among the youth.

The court noted that the petitioner failed to provide any material to suggest that he was not in possession of the contraband at the time of the arrest. Given the recovery of a commercial quantity of MDMA directly from the accused, the court held that the mandatory conditions for bail under Section 37 were not met.

In the final order dated January 18, 2023, the court rejected the bail petition, concluding that the allegations were serious and backed by prima facie evidence of trafficking in commercial quantities of synthetic drugs.