The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances in Bengaluru has rejected the second bail application of Sirigiri Srinivasulu, identified as Accused Number 4 in a major drug trafficking network. The order, delivered on November 28, 2023, by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, emphasizes the stringent application of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, when dealing with commercial quantities of contraband.
The petitioner, Sirigiri Srinivasulu, a 40-year-old resident of Hyderabad, sought enlargement on bail and interim bail in connection with Crime Number 48/1/19/2021 registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau, Bengaluru. The case involves the seizure of approximately 140 kilograms of Ganja and a complex distribution network spanning multiple states.
Background of the Narcotics Control Bureau Investigation
The case originated on September 30, 2021, when the Narcotics Control Bureau received credible intelligence regarding the transportation of narcotics in a Maruti Swift car. Officers intercepted the vehicle near Kundalahalli, where they discovered 136.8 kilograms of Ganja. The initial arrests of Accused Number 1 and Accused Number 2 led to follow-up searches, resulting in a total seizure of 139.735 kilograms of the narcotic substance.
As the investigation progressed, the Narcotics Control Bureau unearthed a sophisticated operational structure. The prosecution alleged that while some accused handled local delivery—sometimes concealing drugs in Swiggy delivery bags to evade detection—Sirigiri Srinivasulu served as a primary supplier from Andhra Pradesh. The investigation revealed that Accused Number 1 coordinated the smuggling activities, and the petitioner allegedly received massive monetary transfers in exchange for the contraband.
Arguments Presented for the Defense
The counsel for Sirigiri Srinivasulu argued that the petitioner is a legitimate Civil Contractor and electrical shop owner who earned his wealth through legal business ventures. The defense highlighted that no drugs were directly seized from the petitioner’s person or residence. It was contended that his arrest was based solely on the voluntary statements of co-accused persons, which the defense argued was insufficient for continued detention.
Furthermore, the petitioner sought interim bail on humanitarian grounds, stating that his wife required urgent medical treatment for an illness. The defense emphasized that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed, arguing that the petitioner was no longer required for custodial interrogation and was willing to abide by any court-imposed conditions.
Prosecution Highlights Financial Nexus and Commercial Quantity
The Narcotics Control Bureau, represented by the Special Public Prosecutor, strongly opposed the bail. The prosecution presented evidence of a significant financial nexus, revealing that the petitioner’s bank account had been frozen with a balance exceeding 30 million rupees. They argued that different co-accused persons had credited funds into the petitioner’s account, establishing a clear link to the drug trade.
Under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the commercial quantity threshold for Ganja is 20 kilograms. The seizure in this case, totaling nearly 140 kilograms, is seven times the legal limit for a “commercial quantity.” The prosecution argued that such a large volume of narcotics posed a grave threat to the younger generation and the career of the youth.
Judicial Reasoning and Final Verdict
In evaluating the petition, the court addressed the defense’s claim regarding the lack of physical seizure from the petitioner. Judge Jayashree clarified that Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is broad in its definition. It penalizes not only those found in physical possession but also those who produce, manufacture, sell, or transport narcotics.
The court noted that the petitioner failed to provide any alternative explanation or evidence for the 30 million rupees found in his account. The judge observed that the monetary transactions prima facie established a nexus between the petitioner and the other accused members of the trafficking team.
Regarding the plea for interim bail on medical grounds, the court reviewed the submitted medical records and found that the petitioner’s wife did not suffer from any serious ailment requiring his immediate presence or extraordinary medical intervention.
The court also took into account that the Karnataka High Court had previously rejected the petitioner’s bail plea in April 2023. Finding no change in circumstances and emphasizing the severity of the charges, the court ruled that the petitioner failed to satisfy the “reasonable grounds” requirement of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Consequently, both the regular bail and the interim bail applications were rejected.