The Special Court for NDPS cases in Bengaluru has dismissed the third bail application filed by 24-year-old Mohammed Irfan P.R, who was arrested in connection with a major drug peddling racket involving “weed oil” and ganja. The order, delivered by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS, emphasized the grave nature of the offense and the recovery of commercial quantities of narcotics from the accused.

The petitioner, a resident of Chikkabanavara, Bengaluru, sought liberty under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in Crime No. 92/2022 registered by the Soladevanahalli Police. He faced charges under Sections 20(B), 20(b)(i), and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

Details of the Apartment Raid and Seizure

The case dates back to May 11, 2022, when Soladevanahalli Police received credible information about drug sales near the Chikkabanavara Railway Parallel road. A raid was conducted under the supervision of the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP). Initially, the police apprehended Mohammed Irfan (Accused No. 3) and another individual, Subin Binoy (Accused No. 1).

During the personal search, police recovered small quantities of ganja and weed oil. However, the investigation took a significant turn when the duo revealed they were residing in Flat No. 1016 of Mahaveer Desire Apartment along with five other associates. Upon searching the apartment, the police discovered a massive cache of narcotics, including 1.580 kilograms of ganja, 1.960 kilograms of ganja oil (weed oil), and 154 boxes filled with weed oil weighing 1.188 kilograms. The seizure also included weighing machines and vessels used for processing the substances.

Arguments Presented by the Defense

The counsel for Mohammed Irfan argued that the petitioner was an innocent youth whose career would be ruined by further detention. The defense contended that the mandatory procedures under Sections 41, 42, and 50 of the NDPS Act were not followed during the search. They specifically argued that no rental agreement had been produced to link Irfan to the apartment where the bulk of the drugs were found. Furthermore, they claimed there were no bank records to prove financial transactions related to drug trafficking, asserting that the petitioner was falsely implicated.

The Prosecution’s Stand: Threat to Younger Generation

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail, highlighting that the total quantity of weed oil seized—nearly 3 kilograms—constitutes a “commercial quantity” under the law. According to the Ministry of Finance notification, even 1 kilogram of weed oil/ganja oil is considered a commercial quantity. The prosecution argued that Irfan and his associates were actively selling these potent drugs to students and the younger generation, posing a severe threat to society. They maintained that if released, the petitioner would likely tamper with witnesses and return to the illegal trade.

Judicial Reasoning: The Rigors of Section 37

In her detailed order, Judge B.S. Jayashree noted that the court must exercise discretion judiciously in heinous crimes. The judge cited several landmark Supreme Court and High Court rulings, including Union of India vs. Mohammed Nawaz Khan, which set stringent parameters for bail in NDPS cases.

The court observed that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, for 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. In this case, the court found that the petitioner was in “conscious possession” of a commercial quantity of contraband.

The judge dismissed the defense’s argument regarding the lack of a rental agreement, stating that such evidentiary details are matters for a full-fledged trial and cannot be used to bypass the gravity of the recovery at the bail stage. The court held that the primary consideration remains the nature of the accusation and the severity of the potential punishment, which ranges from 10 to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.

Finding no merit in the petitioner’s grounds, the court rejected the bail application, ensuring that the accused remains in judicial custody as the trial proceeds.