Bengaluru Court Rejects Bail to Sukhjeet Singh in Commercial Quantity LSD and MDMA Drug Delivery Racket Case Under NDPS Act

In a significant judicial order delivered on September 17, 2022, the XXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, LL.M., rejected the bail petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8430/2022. The court refused to grant regular bail to Sukhjeet Singh (Accused No. 3) in connection with Crime No. 170/2022 registered by the Marathahalli Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 27(a), 20(ii)(B), 23(b), and 23(c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

Prosecution Allegations and Procedural History

The criminal proceedings were set into motion following a report submitted by the Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) of Marathahalli Police Station. According to the prosecution case, on July 28, 2022, at approximately 4:45 PM, the complainant PSI received credible information while on patrolling duty that three individuals were actively engaged in drug trafficking utilizing courier and postal services. The informant revealed that the suspects had stored narcotic drugs in their room, wrapping them as gift parcels and delivering them to college students and IT/BT employees across Bengaluru using app-based delivery aggregators such as Porter and Dunzo.

After notifying superior officers and obtaining formal permission to conduct a raid, the PSI, accompanied by police staff and independent panchas, raided the specified premises. The police team apprehended five individuals inside the room, who disclosed their identities upon enquiry. Sukhjeet Singh, aged 22 years, residing at Zolo Laurel A, No. 89/1, Room No. 406, 4th Floor, 3rd Cross, Veerappa Reddy Layout, Munnekolala, Bengaluru, and having a permanent residence at No. C263/B, 3rd Floor, Pandav Nagar, Shakarpur, Delhi East, Delhi, was arrayed as Accused No. 3.

A search of the room and the personal search of the accused persons yielded 10 MDMA Ecstasy tablets weighing 4.03 grams, 20 LSD strips weighing 0.33 grams, and 1 kilogram 200 grams of ganja. The police seized the contraband under a detailed spot panchanama and prepared a report for the Station House Officer (SHO), leading to the registration of Crime No. 170/2022 under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 27(a), 20(ii)(B), 23(b), and 23(c) of the NDPS Act. The accused persons were arrested, produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, and remanded to judicial custody.

Arguments Submitted by Defence Counsel

Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned advocate Sri G.S. presented several grounds seeking his enlargement on regular bail:

Contention on Contraband Quantity: The defence argued that the quantum of contraband seized directly from the petitioner did not constitute a commercial quantity, entitling him to bail.
Procedural Non-Compliance: It was contended that the search and recovery procedures were vitiated by inherent procedural impropriety and that mandatory statutory safeguards under the NDPS Act were not followed, casting serious doubt on the investigation.
Claim of Innocence: The petitioner asserted that he was innocent, a law-abiding citizen, had been falsely implicated, and was in no way connected to the drugs seized in the room.
Status of Investigation: The defence highlighted that the major portion of the investigation was concluded, further custodial interrogation was not warranted, and the petitioner’s continued detention was unnecessary.
Surety and Local Roots: The petitioner offered to abide by any conditions imposed by the court and furnish reliable sureties for his due appearance.

Prosecution Objections

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail petition, advancing the following arguments:

Seizure of Commercial Quantity: The investigating agency seized 0.33 grams of LSD strips from the accused. Under statutory specifications, 0.1 gram of LSD constitutes a commercial quantity, thereby attracting the strict statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Severity of Sentences: The alleged offences carry rigorous imprisonment for a term that shall not be less than 10 years and may extend up to 20 years, along with a fine.
Interstate Racket and Modus Operandi: The prosecution pointed out that the petitioner, a native of Delhi, along with co-accused persons, procured contraband from Delhi residents and distributed it to students and corporate employees in Bengaluru via app-based delivery services.
Risk of Re-offending and Witness Tampering: The prosecution expressed grave apprehension that the ongoing investigation would be hampered and that if released on bail, the petitioner would tamper with witnesses, abscond, and resume drug trafficking activities harming the younger generation.

Judicial Analysis and Detailed Legal Reasoning

The Special Court evaluated the prosecution papers, statutory provisions, and rival contentions to decide Point No. 1: whether the petitioner made out sufficient grounds for regular bail.

1. Statutory Classification of Contraband Quantities

The court referred to Notification S.O. 1055(E) dated October 19, 2001, issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue). Under Entry Sl. No. 133:

Small Quantity for LSD: Up to 0.002 grams (2 milligrams).
Commercial Quantity for LSD: 0.1 gram (100 milligrams) or more.

Since the quantity of LSD seized from the accused weighed 0.33 grams, the court conclusively established that it exceeded the 0.1-gram commercial threshold by more than three times, bringing the bail application directly under the rigorous statutory bar of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act.

2. Mandatory Twin Conditions Under Section 37 NDPS Act and Precedents

The Special Judge emphasized that for offences involving commercial quantities, Section 37 imposes mandatory twin conditions: bail cannot be granted unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

To reinforce this legal standard, Special Judge Smt. B.S. Jayashree referred to several authoritative Supreme Court precedents:

State of Kerala v. Rajesh [(2020) 12 SCC 122]: The Supreme Court held that “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds, contemplating substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty. The Apex Court cautioned that liberal approaches in granting bail under the NDPS Act are completely uncalled for.
State of M.P. v. Kajad [(2001) 7 SCC 673]: The Supreme Court affirmed that under Section 37(1)(b)(ii), negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception.
Union of India v. Mohammed Nawaz Khan (Crl. Appeal No. 1043/2021, dated Sept 22, 2021): The Apex Court highlighted that stringent parameters are prescribed under the NDPS Act to curb drug trafficking. The Supreme Court set aside a High Court bail order, observing that procedural arguments under Section 42 or technical contentions do not absolve courts from rigorous scrutiny under Section 37(1)(b)(ii).
Babua v. State of Orissa [(2001) 2 SCC 566]: The Apex Court ruled that individual liberty must be balanced against societal interest. Given the lethal impact of drug trafficking on society, keeping accused persons behind bars during trial is justified when prima facie material exists.

3. Application of Law to Present Facts

Applying these dictums, the court noted that 0.33 grams of LSD (commercial quantity), 4.03 grams of MDMA Ecstasy tablets, and 1.20 kg of ganja were seized directly during a joint house search under a spot panchanama. The case diary materials revealed an ongoing investigation into an interstate drug distribution network involving Delhi-based suppliers and app-based delivery channels.

The defence failed to place any material on record to demonstrate that the petitioner was not involved in the crime or in possession of the seized articles. Finding strong prima facie material establishing the petitioner’s involvement in a commercial quantity drug offence, the court held that the mandatory conditions under Section 37 were not satisfied. The court clarified that an order refusing bail at the interlocutory stage is purely an evaluation of prima facie materials and does not amount to a final determination of guilt or innocence, which remains subject to full-fledged trial.

Final Order

Answering Point No. 1 in the negative, Special Judge Smt. B.S. Jayashree formally rejected the bail petition on September 17, 2022:

The petition filed by the petitioner, Sukhjeet Singh, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.