Bengaluru, January 27, 2023 – The XXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru (CCH.33), has rejected the bail application of Emanuel Michael, a 34-year-old resident of Hebbal, who is accused of offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The order, delivered by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, Special Judge (NDPS), denied the plea filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Cr.No.293/2022.
Emanuel Michael, identified as accused No. 2, was arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) on charges related to the seizure of a commercial quantity of MDMA. The offences are punishable under Sections 8(c) and 22(b) of the NDPS Act.
The Operation and Seizures
The case, as narrated by the prosecution (Union of India, Narcotic Control Bureau), details an elaborate drug trafficking operation. The sequence of events began on December 17, 2020, when the NCB received reliable information regarding a suspicious parcel bearing tracking number CC089254397NL at the Foreign Post Office, Chamarajpet, Bengaluru, suspected to contain MDMA.
Following the procedure laid down by law, the NCB team proceeded to the Foreign Post Office and seized 610 grams of MDMA pills from the parcel.
The following day, December 18, 2020, acting on further credible information, the NCB intercepted two African nationals, Emanuel Michael (the petitioner) and Ramla Shedafa Nancy, near the Sahakarnagar Post Office. The interception occurred after the individuals arrived to inquire about the suspicious parcel. Both were subsequently taken to the NCB office, where their voluntary statements were recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
In their statements, both accused reportedly confessed to their involvement in the crime. They were subsequently arrested on December 18, 2020, for committing offences under multiple sections of the NDPS Act, including Sections 22, 23, 27A, 28, 29, and 32B(a)(d).
The investigation revealed further criminal activity:
- Second Parcel Seizure: Based on revelations made during custodial investigation, the NCB officers conducted a seizure at the Foreign Post Office on December 21, 2020, relating to another drug parcel (EG22836800ET) booked by the accused. This operation resulted in the seizure of 235 grams of off-white coloured powder believed to be cocaine.
- Immigration Status: It was also uncovered that both accused were allegedly possessing fake passports and residing in India illegally.
Petitioner’s Grounds for Bail
Emanuel Michael, represented by Sri. Mohd. Mubaraak, Advocate, sought bail on multiple grounds:
- Innocence and False Implication: He claimed to be falsely implicated and unaware of the seized drug.
- Statutory Compliance: He argued that the mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act were not followed during the recovery process.
- Length of Detention: The petitioner cited his detention period of over two years and the potentially long duration of the trial as a ground for release.
- Family and Humanitarian Grounds: He mentioned that his two small children were sick and eager to see him, pleading on humanitarian considerations.
- Previous Rejections: The bail petitions filed earlier by the petitioner had been rejected by both the Special Court and the Hon’ble High Court.
Prosecution’s Firm Opposition
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail plea, asserting that 610 grams of MDMA—a commercial quantity—was seized. The prosecution underscored the gravity of the offense, which carries a punishment of up to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The prosecution warned that releasing the petitioner could lead to him tampering with witnesses, fleeing justice, or re-engaging in drug-related activities, which they argued would ruin the career of younger generations.
Court’s Stringent Examination Under NDPS Act
The Special Judge dedicated a significant portion of the order to analyzing the bail plea under the stringent parameters of the NDPS Act, particularly Section 37, which deals with offences involving commercial quantities.
The Court first confirmed the nature of the seized contraband. Referencing the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification S.O.1055(E) dated October 19, 2001, the Court noted that for MDMA, 10 grams is classified as a commercial quantity. Since the seizure involved 610 grams of MDMA, the Court definitively concluded that it was a commercial quantity, thereby activating the rigors of Section 37.
Citing the critical judgments of the Supreme Court, including Union of India through NCB., Lucknow Vs. Mohammed Nawaz Khan (2021) and State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh (2020), the Court emphasized the heightened scrutiny required for commercial quantity drug cases.
The key takeaways from the legal analysis were:
- “Reasonable Grounds”: Section 37 requires the Court to have “reasonable grounds to believe” that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The Court observed that “reasonable grounds” means something more than just prima facie grounds, requiring “substantial probable causes” for believing in the accused’s innocence.
- Prima Facie Material: The Court held that at the present stage, there is sufficient prima facie material against the petitioner, especially concerning the seizure of 610 grams of MDMA and the subsequent recovery of cocaine, which was based on the petitioner’s own voluntary statement and custodial investigation. The petitioner failed to place any material to establish that he was not in conscious possession of the NDPS articles.
- Societal Interest: The Court also referenced the judgment in Babua Vs. State of Orissa (2001), which stated that in cases involving narcotic drugs, where the activity is lethal to society, it is in the interest of society to keep such persons behind bars during the pendency of proceedings.
The Special Judge concluded that the petitioner had failed to satisfy the mandatory dual conditions of Section 37(1)(b). The severity and commercial nature of the seizure, coupled with the existing prima facie evidence, outweighed the grounds cited for release, including the extended period of judicial custody and family circumstances.
Consequently, the Court held that the petition filed by Emanuel Michael was unsustainable and proceeded to reject the bail application.