The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances in Bengaluru has rejected the bail application of 21-year-old Veenith, also known as K.P or Appu, following his arrest for the possession of commercial quantities of synthetic drugs. The order, delivered by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS on August 24, 2022, emphasizes the stringent legal threshold for bail when commercial quantities of contraband are involved.
The petitioner, a resident of Jakkasandra, Bengaluru, was arrayed as Accused Number 1 in Crime Number 135/2022 registered by the Madiwala Police Station. He faced charges under Sections 20(b), 8(c), 21(c), and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. These sections deal specifically with the production, possession, sale, and purchase of cannabis and manufactured psychotropic substances.
The Prosecution Case and the Raid Details
The criminal proceedings against Veenith were initiated on July 26, 2022. According to the police report, a Sub-Inspector from the Madiwala Police Station received credible intelligence that three individuals were selling narcotics near the Jakkasandra Kadalekayi Mandi. Acting on this information, the police conducted a raid at approximately 2:45 pm.
During the search operation, the police apprehended the suspects and conducted a personal search. The search yielded 1 kilogram and 300 grams of Ganja along with 11 grams and 45 milligrams of MDMA, a potent synthetic drug. Following the recovery, the police drew up a detailed seizure panchanama and registered the case against Veenith and two other accomplices. The accused was subsequently remanded to judicial custody.
Defense Arguments for Liberty
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Veenith was an innocent citizen who had been falsely implicated. A primary point of contention raised by the defense was that the search and seizure procedures were vitiated by procedural impropriety, claiming that the mandatory guidelines of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, were not followed.
The defense further argued that the investigation was largely concluded and that Veenith’s continued detention was unnecessary as he was a permanent resident of Bengaluru and willing to abide by any court-imposed conditions. The defense also attempted to present CCTV footage from a restaurant to suggest that the arrest occurred earlier than recorded by the police, though the court noted that the footage was unclear and the individual’s face was not visible.
The Critical Threshold of Commercial Quantity
The court’s decision rested heavily on the classification of the seized MDMA. Under the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E), 10 grams of MDMA is classified as a “commercial quantity.” Since Veenith was found with 11.45 grams, the court observed that the recovery exceeded the commercial threshold.
Under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, specifically Section 37, the law provides that bail should not be granted for commercial quantities unless the court is satisfied that there are “reasonable grounds” for believing the accused is not guilty. Judge B.S. Jayashree cited several Supreme Court precedents, including State of Kerala vs. Rajesh (2020) and State of MP vs. Kajad (2001), which establish that negation of bail is the rule and its grant is the exception in such cases.
The judge remarked that a liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is uncalled for, given the seriousness of the offence and the menace of drug trafficking. The court noted that “reasonable grounds” means something more than a mere prima facie case; it requires a substantial probable cause to believe in the innocence of the accused.
The Court’s Conclusion
The court found that the petitioner failed to place any material to disprove the possession of the narcotics at the time of apprehension. Furthermore, the court highlighted that in cases involving lethal substances like MDMA, the interest of society and the protection of the younger generation outweigh the individual liberty of the accused during the pendency of the trial.
Consequently, as the conditions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, were not met, the court rejected the bail petition. The petitioner remains in judicial custody while the investigation continues to proceed. This ruling serves as a reminder of the high legal bar set for those accused of dealing in commercial quantities of synthetic narcotics in the state of Karnataka.