The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances in Bengaluru has rejected the bail application of 24-year-old Ashik U B, who was arrested for allegedly possessing and selling a commercial quantity of MDMA crystals. Presiding Judge Smt. B.S. Jayashree, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS, ruled that the severity of the offence and the quantity of the seized contraband outweighed the petitioner’s claims of innocence and procedural lapses.
The legal proceedings, registered under Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8628/2022, originated from an enforcement action conducted by the Soladevanahalli Police. The petitioner was booked under the stringent provisions of Section 8(c) and Section 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. These sections deal with the prohibition of certain operations involving narcotic drugs and the punishment for contravention in relation to psychotropic substances involving commercial quantities, respectively.
Details of the Police Raid and Seizure
According to the prosecution’s case, the incident took place on August 22, 2022. The Police Sub-Inspector of Soladevanahalli Police Station received credible intelligence at approximately 1:00 PM regarding a person selling prohibited MDMA crystals to college students and the general public near Madhulakshmi Wood Industries on Medarahalli Road. Following the receipt of this information, the officer notified the Assistant Commissioner of Police to obtain the necessary authorization for a raid.
The raiding team, accompanied by independent witnesses known as panchas, reached the designated spot where they observed a person moving in a suspicious manner. Upon apprehending the individual, he identified himself as Ashik U B, a native of Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, residing in Peenya, Bengaluru. A search conducted by the police led to the discovery of 25 grams of MDMA crystals. The prosecution alleged that the accused intended to sell the contraband at prices ranging from 8,000 to 10,000 rupees per gram. The seized drugs, valued at approximately 2 lakhs rupees, were confiscated under a detailed mahazar, and the accused was subsequently remanded to judicial custody.
Arguments Presented by the Petitioner
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Sri Mahendra N., moved the court for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The defense argued that Ashik U B was a law-abiding citizen who had been falsely implicated in the case. A primary pillar of the defense’s argument was the allegation of procedural non-compliance. It was contended that the mandatory procedures contemplated under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, were not followed during the search and recovery.
The defense further highlighted a delay in the registration of the First Information Report, noting that the police were at the station for over two hours after receiving the tip-off before proceeding to the spot. Counsel argued that the petitioner hailed from a respectable family and was gainfully employed, suggesting he had “deep roots in society” and was not a flight risk. They maintained that custodial interrogation was no longer necessary as the search was complete.
Prosecution’s Opposition and Legal Standards
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail plea, emphasizing the grave nature of the “commercial quantity” involved. Under the notification issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, 0.5 grams of MDMA is considered a small quantity, while 10 grams or more constitutes a commercial quantity. Since 25 grams were seized, the accused faces a minimum of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, which may extend to 20 years.
The prosecution argued that the liberal granting of bail in drug trafficking cases would undermine the career of the younger generation and allow the accused to tamper with witnesses or flee the jurisdiction.
The Court’s Reasoning and Final Order
In its detailed analysis, the court focused on the limitations imposed by Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. This specific section dictates that bail should not be granted for offences involving commercial quantities unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.
Judge B.S. Jayashree cited several landmark judgments from the Supreme Court of India, including the cases of State of Kerala vs. Rajesh and State of M.P. vs. Kajad. The court reiterated that under the NDPS Act, “negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception.” The judge observed that the petitioner failed to place any material before the court to prove he was not in possession of the contraband at the time of the arrest.
The court noted that the liberty of a citizen must be balanced against the interests of society, especially in cases involving lethal substances like MDMA. Finding no reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner was innocent at this stage of the investigation, the court rejected the bail petition. Ashik U B remains in judicial custody pending further trial proceedings.