BENGALURU – The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) in Bengaluru has rejected the bail application of 39-year-old Somashekar, who was arrested by the RMC Yard Police for allegedly possessing and storing a commercial quantity of cannabis. The court ruled that the gravity of the offence and the significant quantity of narcotics recovered from the accused’s residence established a strong prima facie case, making him ineligible for release under the stringent provisions of the law.
The order was delivered by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), on January 21, 2023. The petitioner, a resident of Neelasandra, Bengaluru, remains in judicial custody following the dismissal of his petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Details of the RMC Yard Police Raid and Recovery
The legal proceedings were initiated on September 18, 2022, following a proactive raid by the RMC Yard Police. According to the prosecution’s case, the police received credible intelligence that two individuals were transporting ganja on a two-wheeler near Marappanapalya, behind Govardhan Talkies, on Tumkur Road.
Acting on this information, a police team conducted a surveillance operation and apprehended two suspects around 12:00 noon. A search of the covers in their possession revealed 2 kilograms and 100 grams of ganja. However, the investigation deepened following the voluntary statements of the arrested individuals.
The primary accused revealed that they had stored a much larger consignment of narcotics at Somashekar’s residence in Rose Garden, Neelasandra. Upon raiding the house, the police discovered two luggage bags and a college bag containing several packets wrapped in plastic tape. On opening these packets, the police recovered an additional 20 kilograms and 150 grams of ganja. The total seizure in the case amounted to 23 kilograms and 300 grams, which is legally classified as a “commercial quantity.”
The Legal “Twin Test” for Commercial Quantity
The petitioner’s counsel, Smt. J.S. Nalini, argued that Somashekar was innocent and had been falsely implicated. She contended that the mandatory procedures for search and seizure under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, were not followed and that the petitioner was a law-abiding citizen who would not abscond if granted bail.
However, the prosecution strongly opposed the bail, highlighting that the quantity seized far exceeds the 20-kilogram threshold for “commercial quantity.” Under Indian law, specifically Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, bail in commercial quantity cases is subject to a rigorous “Twin Test.”
This test requires the court to be satisfied that:
- There are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence.
- The accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Judge B.S. Jayashree noted that the threshold for “reasonable grounds” is significantly higher than a mere prima facie doubt. It requires substantial probable cause to believe in the innocence of the accused.
Judicial Reasoning: Balancing Liberty with Public Safety
In its detailed reasoning, the court referred to several landmark judgments of the Supreme Court of India, including Union of India vs. Mohammed Nawaz Khan and State of Kerala vs. Rajesh. The court emphasized that the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, provides for deterrent punishment to curb the menace of drug trafficking, which poses a lethal threat to society and the younger generation.
The court observed that the narcotics were recovered directly from the hall of the petitioner’s house, indicating “conscious possession.” The judge remarked that a liberal approach in granting bail for drug-related offences is uncalled for, as the impact of drug distribution ruins careers and lives.
“At this stage, there are prima facie materials available against the petitioner in regard to the possession of narcotic drug,” the court noted. Finding that the petitioner failed to meet the high bar required for bail in cases involving commercial quantities, the court answered the point for consideration in the negative.
With the rejection of this bail plea, Somashekar will continue to remain in judicial custody as the case proceeds toward trial. The court reiterated that the safety of the society and the gravity of the charges must outweigh the concept of personal liberty in instances where large-scale drug trafficking is alleged.