The Special Court for NDPS cases in Bengaluru has dismissed the second bail application filed by Pankaj Verma, a 22-year-old accused of transporting a commercial quantity of Charas (Hashish) via a long-distance express train. The decision, delivered on January 20, 2023, by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), emphasized the stringent requirements for bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act when commercial quantities are involved.
Background of the Narcotic Control Bureau Operation
The case against Pankaj Verma began on April 12, 2022, when the Bengaluru Zonal Unit of the Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB) received specific intelligence. The information indicated that two individuals, Om Prakash Gupta (Accused No. 1) and Pankaj Verma (Accused No. 2), were traveling from Aishbagh, Uttar Pradesh, to Bengaluru aboard the Gorakhpur SF Express (Train No. 22533). The intelligence suggested they were carrying a significant quantity of Charas in their luggage, intended for delivery to a local distributor in Bengaluru.
Acting on this lead, NCB officers organized a raiding team and intercepted the train at Platform No. 5 of the Yeshwanthpur Junction Railway Station in the early hours of April 13, 2022. Officers identified the suspects in Coach S4, occupying seats 29 and 30. A search of their belongings led to the discovery of 3.176 kilograms of Charas/Hashish. Following the seizure, the NCB launched a formal prosecution under various sections of the NDPS Act, including Section 8(c) and Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 27, 27A, 28, and 29.
Arguments Presented by the Defense
In his second attempt to secure bail, Pankaj Verma, represented by Sri. Rajesh Rao, argued that he was an innocent victim of circumstances. The defense contended that the NCB had arrested the wrong person and that the entire search and seizure operation was flawed because it was not documented through video or photography.
A major point raised by the defense was the principle of parity. It was claimed that Accused No. 3, the alleged mastermind who booked the drugs, had been granted bail by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. The defense argued that as the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed, Verma’s continued detention was unnecessary and would only serve to spoil his career by exposing him to hardened criminals in prison. They further emphasized that he hailed from a respectable family and had no prior criminal record.
Prosecution Highlights the Inter-State Drug Syndicate
The Narcotic Control Bureau, represented by the Special Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the bail plea. The prosecution detailed a sophisticated trafficking operation where Accused No. 3 (Anurag Kumar Halwai) allegedly ordered the drugs from North India. Evidence presented included ICICI Bank transaction records showing that Accused No. 3 had transferred approximately Rs. 1,10,000 to a middleman, a portion of which was received by the carriers.
The prosecution argued that Verma was caught in “conscious possession” of a commercial quantity of narcotics. Under Indian law, the commercial threshold for Charas is 1 kilogram; the 3.176 kilograms seized in this case is more than triple that limit. The NCB maintained that the voluntary statements and the digital trail of bank transactions provided ample evidence of a conspiracy to traffic drugs into Bengaluru.
The Court’s Reasoning and the Mandate of Section 37
In reaching its decision, the court focused on the specific legal hurdles presented by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Unlike regular criminal cases where “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” the NDPS Act reverses this logic for commercial quantities. To grant bail, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and that he is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.
Judge B.S. Jayashree noted that “reasonable grounds” means something more than a mere prima facie case; it requires substantial probable cause to believe in the innocence of the accused. The court found that the defense failed to provide any material to distance the petitioner from the drug peddling allegations. Furthermore, the court scrutinized the claim of parity and found that the defense had provided an incorrect criminal petition number, and records did not confirm that the co-accused had been granted bail in this specific matter.
Citing various Supreme Court precedents, including the recent Union of India vs. Mohammed Nawaz Khan, the court emphasized that the seriousness of drug trafficking requires stringent parameters for bail. The court observed that the petitioner was traveling across several states with the contraband concealed in his luggage, which points toward active participation in the illicit trade.
Final Decision
The court concluded that the allegations against Pankaj Verma are serious and involve a commercial quantity of prohibited substances that are lethal to society. Balancing the liberty of the individual against the interests of the public, the court found no grounds to exercise its discretion in favor of the petitioner.
The order concluded: “The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C is hereby rejected.” Pankaj Verma will remain in judicial custody as the trial proceedings continue.