The XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Court and Special Judge for NDPS in Bengaluru has rejected the second bail application of Shekappa (Accused No. 1) and Dr. Rajesh R (Accused No. 2). The duo is accused of operating a sophisticated illegal export network of psychotropic substances under the guise of a legitimate pharmaceutical company.

The DRI Investigation and the FedEx Interception

The case, investigated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Bengaluru, began with a credible intelligence report regarding the illicit export of restricted pharmaceutical drugs. On April 4, 2023, DRI officers intercepted four export consignments at the FedEx Express facility at Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru.

Upon inspection, the consignments, which were destined for the USA, UK, and Australia, were found to contain significant quantities of psychotropic substances:

• Alprazolam: Over 9,000 tablets weighing 1.7 kilograms.
• Tramadol: 600 tablets weighing 307 grams.
• Diazepam: 500 tablets weighing over 2 kilograms.
• Nitrazepam: 250 tablets.

Under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, these quantities are classified as “commercial,” which triggers stringent legal hurdles for bail.

The Raid on M/s. Rashe Life Sciences Private Ltd

Following the airport interception, the DRI conducted a search at the premises of M/s. Rashe Life Sciences Private Ltd in Byraveshwaranagar, Magadi Road. Shekappa was identified as the owner, and Dr. Rajesh R as a director and partner. During the raid, additional stocks of Alprazolam and Tramadol were seized.

The investigation revealed that the firm lacked the mandatory Import Export Code (IEC) and specific authorizations from the Narcotics Commissioner required for handling such substances.

Defense Contentions: Legitimate Business and Medical Practice

Counsel for the petitioners argued that Shekappa was a legitimate businessman with a drug license and that every sale was documented with invoices. They contended that the substances were supplied based on customer requirements and that there was no intent to violate the law.

For Dr. Rajesh, the defense argued that he was a busy medical practitioner seeing 150 patients daily and acted only as a “sleeping partner” in the firm. They claimed his signatures on prescriptions were done in good faith for medical requirements and that he was unaware of the illegal export activities.

Prosecution’s Counter: “Template” Prescriptions and Online Trading

The Special Public Prosecutor for the DRI presented a compelling counter-argument. They alleged that the duo used an online trading portal, India Mart, to find international customers looking for controlled substances.

The prosecution highlighted that the “prescriptions” issued by Dr. Rajesh were essentially templates. They lacked:

• Patient medical history or diagnosis.
• Specific dosages or administration instructions.
• Authentic consultation details.

The DRI argued that the exception under Rule 67-A of the NDPS Rules—which allows for the supply of medicines to foreigners—is intended for travelers within India for self-consumption and cannot be used as a legal shield for large-scale illegal exports.

The Court’s Ruling: Total Weight vs. Active Ingredient

A key legal argument raised by the defense was that the court should only consider the weight of the “active ingredient” in the tablets rather than the total weight of the pills to determine if the quantity was “commercial.”

Judge Smt. B.S. Jayashree dismissed this argument, citing the Supreme Court of India’s landmark judgment in Hira Singh vs. Union of India. The court reaffirmed that the total weight of the mixture or preparation, including neutral substances (like binders or fillers in a tablet), must be considered when determining the quantity.

Shutterstock

Final Verdict: No Grounds for Bail

The court found that the petitioners had failed to overcome the “twin conditions” of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Under this section, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and that they are unlikely to commit any offense while on bail.

Given the commercial quantity of the drugs, the evidence of “template” prescriptions, and the lack of proper export authorizations, the court ruled that the gravity of the offense outweighed the petitioners’ claims of innocence. The bail petition was dismissed.

Would you like me to elaborate on the specific sections of the NDPS Act mentioned in this order?