The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) in Bengaluru has dealt a significant blow to Nadeem Pasha, the second accused in a high-profile drug trafficking case, by rejecting his second application for bail. The court, presided over by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, ruled that the sheer volume of the contraband seized and the lack of reasonable grounds to believe in the petitioner’s innocence made him ineligible for release under the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act.

The petitioner, Nadeem Pasha, a 29-year-old resident of Kodigehalli, HAL 2nd Stage, remains in judicial custody following his arrest by the Chandra Layout Police. The case involves the transportation of a massive quantity of ganja, classified as a commercial quantity under Indian law.

Details of the 81.45 kg Ganja Bust and Investigation

The criminal case (Crime No. 122/2022) traces back to April 22, 2022. Acting on precise intelligence, the Police Inspector of Chandra Layout Police Station was informed that two individuals were transporting narcotics in an Ashok Leyland vehicle (bearing registration No. KA-04 AB 8637) from Nayandahalli Ring Road towards Ramanagara via Mysore Road.

Upon receiving authorization from higher officials, a police team mounted surveillance at Suvarna Layout. When the vehicle in question appeared, it was intercepted, leading to the apprehension of Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 (Nadeem Pasha). A search of the vehicle led to the discovery of 81 kilograms and 450 grams of ganja. The police seized the contraband and the vehicle under a detailed mahazar, subsequently filing a charge sheet after the conclusion of the investigation.

Arguments Presented for the Defense and Prosecution

In his second bail petition, Nadeem Pasha’s counsel argued that the petitioner was a law-abiding citizen who had been falsely implicated. The defense contended that the procedural requirements of the NDPS Act were not strictly followed during the recovery process. They further argued that since the investigation was complete and the charge sheet filed, there was no longer a need for custodial detention.

The Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed these claims. The state argued that 81.45 kg of ganja is a significant “commercial quantity,” far exceeding the 20 kg threshold. The prosecution emphasized that if released, Pasha might tamper with witnesses or return to the illicit drug trade, which ruins the lives of the younger generation. They asserted that the evidence gathered by the investigating agency was robust and complied with all legal protocols.

The Severity of Section 37: Why Bail was Denied

The core of the court’s reasoning relied on Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Unlike regular criminal law where “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” the NDPS Act reverses this principle for commercial quantities. Under Section 37(1)(b), bail cannot be granted unless the court is satisfied that there are “reasonable grounds” for believing that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any crime while on bail.

Judge B.S. Jayashree noted that “reasonable grounds” means something more than just a prima facie case; it requires substantial probable cause to believe in the accused’s innocence. In this instance, the court found that the seizure was made in the presence of the petitioner and that the quantity was undeniably commercial.

The court cited several landmark judgments from the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Court of Karnataka to support its decision:

• NCB vs. Mohit Agrawal (2022): The Supreme Court clarified that neither the length of custody nor the filing of a charge sheet serves as a sufficient ground for bail under Section 37 if the commercial quantity criteria are met.
• State of Kerala vs. Rajesh (2020): The Apex Court emphasized that a “liberal approach” to bail in NDPS cases is uncalled for and that the safety of society must be balanced against individual liberty.
• Union of India vs. Mohammed Nawaz Khan (2021): The court noted that even if the contraband is found in a vehicle and not on the person of the accused, it still constitutes “possession” if the accused was aware of the concealment and traveling with the co-accused.

Impact on Society and Final Order

The court highlighted that narcotic drugs are lethal to the fabric of society. Judge Jayashree observed that the petitioner was traveling with the co-accused in a vehicle containing a large amount of ganja, which indicates shared intent and knowledge. The filing of the charge sheet, according to the court, actually reinforces the presence of incriminatory material rather than weakening the case for detention.

Concluding that no additional or extraordinary grounds were presented in the second petition, the court formally rejected the application. Nadeem Pasha will continue to remain in judicial custody as the trial proceedings continue. This order reinforces the strict stance of Bengaluru’s special courts against large-scale drug trafficking and the high evidentiary bar required for bail in such cases.