In a firm stance against drug trafficking, the XXXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (NDPS) in Bengaluru, Smt. B.S. Jayashree, rejected the bail applications of two men, Arafath V.M. (Accused No. 1) and Ijas (Accused No. 2), who were arrested in connection with the seizure of 60 grams of MDMA (Methylenedioxymethamphetamine), a quantity classified as commercial quantity under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The order, pronounced on January 16, 2023, underscores the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, reiterating the principle that “negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception” in serious drug-related offenses.
The petitioners, represented by Sri P.R. Bhat, Advocate, had filed the petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking release in Crime No. 299/2022 registered at the Begur Police Station for offenses punishable under Section 8(c) and 22(C) of the NDPS Act.
The Prosecution’s Case and the Alleged Offence
The case was initiated based on a complaint filed by the Police Inspector (PI) of CCB, (W&N), Bengaluru. The gist of the complaint detailed a raid conducted on November 26, 2022, around 5:00 p.m., following credible information. The raid targeted a specific apartment in the Wellington Paradise Layout, Singasandra, where three individuals were allegedly in possession of MDMA and actively involved in selling it to the public.
During the surveillance and subsequent apprehension, the petitioners, Arafath V.M. and Ijas, along with a third person, were surrounded and arrested after reportedly attempting to flee. A search revealed the possession of 60 grams of MDMA. This contraband was seized under a mahazar (seizure memo), and the accused were subsequently remanded to judicial custody.
Bail Grounds and Judicial Scrutiny
The petitioners argued that they were innocent, falsely implicated, and that the procedures contemplated under the NDPS Act were not properly followed during the recovery. They also contested the absence of mention regarding the actual weight of the MDMA in some initial documents and claimed no prior criminal antecedents. They further asserted that the major portion of the investigation was concluded and that custodial interrogation was no longer warranted. They offered to abide by any conditions and provide surety for their appearance.
The prosecution, however, vehemently opposed the bail plea, emphasizing the commercial quantity of the seized contraband (60 grams). The prosecution highlighted that the offense is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term of up to 10 years and is liable to a fine. It was argued that releasing the accused could lead to tampering with prosecution witnesses and a risk of them involving themselves in similar offenses, particularly stressing the detrimental impact of drug sales on the younger generation.
The Court’s Detailed Analysis on Commercial Quantity and Bail Parameters
In addressing the core issue, the Court focused on the gravity of the offense as defined by the NDPS Act. The key finding was that the seized 60 grams of MDMA clearly falls under the commercial quantity threshold. The Court referenced the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Notification S.O.1055(E) dated October 19, 2001 (Sl. No. 134), which specifies that the commercial quantity for MDMA is 10 grams. Since 60 grams is six times this threshold, the offense triggers the severe limitations on bail enshrined in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The Court then conducted a detailed review of Supreme Court precedents regarding bail under the NDPS Act, which mandates a higher level of judicial scrutiny than normal bail applications:
- Union of India through NCB., Lucknow Vs., Mohammed Nawaz Khan (2021): This judgment was extensively quoted, emphasizing that the Court must be satisfied on two grounds: (i) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed the offense, and (ii) he is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. The Supreme Court had previously cautioned against a liberal approach, even where the contraband was not found directly on the person, affirming that the statutory requirement under Section 37(1)(b) must be met.
- State of Kerala Vs., Rajesh (2020): This case clarified that “reasonable grounds” means “something more than prima facie grounds,” contemplating a “substantial probable cause” for believing the accused is innocent. The liberal approach in NDPS matters was deemed “uncalled for.”
- State of MP Vs., Kajad (2001): Reaffirmed the principle: “Negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception.”
The Judge concluded that the petitioners had failed to meet these rigorous standards. Given the prima facie material available against them regarding the conscious possession of a commercial quantity of a narcotic drug, the Court was unable to form the requisite “reasonable grounds” to believe they were not guilty.
Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners had not made out sufficient grounds to enlarge them on bail and rejected the petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The order signifies the judiciary’s commitment to enforcing the strict provisions of the NDPS Act to combat serious drug-related crimes.