The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) in Bengaluru has rejected the bail application of a 24-year-old accused, Shahal P, in connection with a major synthetic drug trafficking case. The order, delivered on April 27, 2024, by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, Special Judge for NDPS, emphasized the rigorous standards for bail in cases involving “commercial quantities” of narcotics.
The petitioner, Shahal P, a native of Kannur, Kerala, and resident of Kothanur, Bengaluru, was seeking release under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, following his arrest by the Parappana Agrahara Police. He faces charges under Section 8(c), Section 21(c), and Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The Police Raid and Discovery of MDMA
The criminal proceedings were initiated on January 26, 2024. Acting on credible information, the Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) of Parappana Agrahara conducted a raid at Electronic City Phase 2, near a BMTC bus depot. During the operation, the police apprehended Accused No. 1 and allegedly recovered 152 grams of MDMA crystals from his possession.
Upon interrogation and recording of a voluntary statement, Accused No. 1 claimed that his friend, Shahal P (the petitioner), had supplied the contraband to him. Following this lead, Shahal P was apprehended on January 27, 2024. His voluntary statement revealed a sophisticated operation where payments were made via digital platforms like Google Pay or PhonePe to unidentified strangers who would then leave the drugs at specific locations for pickup.
Legal Arguments: “Commercial Quantity” and Online Payments
The defense counsel argued that the petitioner was innocent and had been falsely implicated based solely on the statements of co-accused individuals. They contended that the mandatory procedures under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were not followed during the recovery process and that there were no reasonable grounds to link him to the crime.
Opposing the plea, the Public Prosecutor highlighted the gravity of the seizure. According to the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E), for MDMA (3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine), 0.5 grams is considered a small quantity, while anything above 10 grams is categorized as a “commercial quantity.”
In this instance, the 152 grams seized is 15 times the commercial threshold. The prosecution provided evidence that the petitioner had used online payment methods to procure the drugs, which were intended for distribution to the younger generation in Bengaluru.
Court’s Reasoning on Section 37 Constraints
The court focused its reasoning on the strict provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. This section mandates that in cases involving commercial quantities, bail cannot be granted unless the court is satisfied that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further offenses.
The judge referenced the landmark Supreme Court decision in State of Kerala vs. Rajesh (2020), which clarifies that “reasonable grounds” must be substantial probable causes for believing in innocence, rather than just a prima facie finding.
The Final Verdict
Judge B.S. Jayashree noted that the investigation is still ongoing and that there is significant prima facie material—specifically the online transaction records and the statements of co-accused—linking the petitioner to the trafficking ring. The court also observed that bail petitions for Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 3 had already been rejected by the same court.
Concluding that the petitioner failed to overcome the legal bar set for commercial quantity offenses, the court rejected the bail application. Shahal P remains in judicial custody as the investigation continues into the supply chain of the synthetic drug racket.
Would you like me to summarize the specific digital evidence mentioned in this case or look up the current penalties for commercial quantity possession under the NDPS Act?