BENGALURU – In a significant legal development, a Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) in Bengaluru has granted bail to Tejas K.C., popularly known as “Tiger,” who was arrested in connection with the seizure of a commercial quantity of MDMA crystals. The court’s decision hinged on the procedural lapses by the investigating agency, specifically the non-compliance with mandatory search protocols under the NDPS Act.
The order was delivered by Sri G. Raghavendra, the XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), on January 25, 2023. The petitioner, a 28-year-old resident of Kamalanagara and a native of Tumkur, was facing charges under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 25(1b)(B) of the Arms Act, and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Background of the Arrest and Recovery
The case against Tejas K.C. originated on December 11, 2022. According to the prosecution, the Rajagopalanagara Police were initially investigating a separate case involving the Arms Act. Acting on a tip-off, the Police Sub-Inspector apprehended Tejas near Hussain Bike Point in GKW Layout, where he was allegedly found with a stolen motorcycle.
During the interrogation at the spot, the accused reportedly revealed that he was in possession of MDMA crystals, which were hidden in a black plastic cover within the motorcycle. The police subsequently seized 50.52 grams of MDMA crystals. Under the current Central Government specifications, any quantity of MDMA exceeding 10 grams is classified as a “commercial quantity,” which carries much more stringent bail conditions.
The Legal Hurdle: Section 37 and Section 50 of the NDPS Act
Typically, Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, makes it extremely difficult for an accused to obtain bail if the case involves a commercial quantity. The law requires the court to be satisfied that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe the accused is not guilty and that they are unlikely to commit further crimes while out on bail.
However, the defense counsel, Sri Manu B.S., argued that the mandatory procedures for searching a person were ignored. The court focused its scrutiny on Section 50 of the NDPS Act. This section mandates that when a person is about to be searched, the officer must inform them of their right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate.
The judge noted that when the accused revealed he had MDMA in his possession, the investigating officer was legally bound to follow the protocol under Section 50. The prosecution failed to produce any documentation to show that the officer recorded the reasons for a sudden search or informed the accused of his legal rights regarding the presence of a Magistrate.
Judicial Reasoning: Procedure Over Substance
The court relied on a precedent set by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Abu Thahir B. @ Abdu vs. Union of India. The ruling established that if the mandatory provisions of the Act are not strictly followed, the “rigor” or the strictness of Section 37 cannot be invoked to reject a bail plea.
The judge observed that while 50.52 grams of MDMA is a commercial quantity, the apparent failure to follow the search and seizure procedure created “reasonable grounds” to doubt the prosecution’s case at this preliminary stage. Furthermore, the court noted that co-accused in the same FIR had already been released on bail and that Tejas had no documented history of involvement in similar narcotics offenses.
“The expression ‘reasonable grounds’ means something more than prima facie grounds,” the court remarked, citing Supreme Court observations. It concluded that the procedural vacuum regarding Section 50 was sufficient to allow the petition.
Terms of the Bail
While granting the bail, the court imposed strict conditions to ensure the accused remains available for trial. Tejas K.C. was ordered to be released upon executing a personal bond of 1,00,000 rupees with two sureties for the like sum.
The conditions include:
- The petitioner shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses or abscond.
- He must appear before the Investigating Officer whenever summoned.
- He must regularly appear before the court for all hearings.
- He is strictly prohibited from committing any similar offenses while on bail.
- He must not leave the jurisdiction of the court without permission.
The court warned that any breach of these conditions would entail the immediate cancellation of his bail. The ruling serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies of the critical importance of adhering to statutory procedures during narcotics investigations.