NDPS Act’s Stringent Bail Conditions Halt Release for Alleged Drug Trafficker, Abdul Rehaman

A Bengaluru Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act cases has rejected the second bail application filed by an individual identified as Abdul Rehaman @ Ajju, who is Accused No. 4 in a case involving the seizure of a “commercial quantity” of 405 kilograms of Ganja (Cannabis). The court, on September 11, 2023, emphasized the severe constraints imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, reiterating that the gravity and quantum of the seized contraband preclude a liberal approach to granting bail.

Case Background and Initial Arrests

The case originated from a raid conducted by the Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) of D J Halli Police Station. On February 15, 2023, following a credible tip-off, the police apprehended an initial accused, Nawaz Baigh, near Edga ground, Tannary road, Bengaluru. Nawaz Baigh was found to be in possession of 2.5 kilograms of Ganja. His subsequent voluntary statement led to the seizure of an additional 1.08 kilograms from his residence, and he disclosed that he had purchased the Ganja from individuals named Firoz Khan and Prasad of Vysak.

Subsequently, based on the voluntary statement of Accused No. 1, the police intensified their investigation to apprehend other individuals involved in the drug trafficking operation.

The Apprehension of Accused No. 4 and the Massive Seizure

The petitioner, Abdul Rehaman @ Ajju (Accused No. 4), was apprehended on February 27, 2023, near Vyalikaval society. Police, mounting surveillance, observed three persons carrying huge bags. Upon questioning, one person identified himself as Abdul Rehaman, stating he had procured the contraband from Firoz Khan and Prasad of Vysak. The other two individuals reportedly fled the scene upon seeing the police.

Abdul Rehaman then showed the police twelve bags of Ganja. When checked and weighed under a detailed mahazar (record of seizure), the total weight of the Ganja came out to be 405 kilograms. Following the seizure and formal arrest, the case was registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.

Arguments for Bail (The Petitioner’s Grounds)

The petitioner, Abdul Rehaman, filed his second bail petition under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) after his first plea (Cr.Misc. 2835/2023) was rejected on April 1, 2023. His main arguments included:

• Innocence and False Implication: He claimed he was innocent, had no knowledge of the crime, and was falsely implicated by “extraneous elements.”
• Mandatory Provision Non-Compliance: He alleged that the mandatory search and seizure procedures, specifically those under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, were not complied with.
• No Eye-Witnesses: He asserted there were no direct eye-witnesses to the alleged sale of the contraband.
• Willingness to Comply: He assured the court he was a permanent resident, had no bad antecedents, was the sole bread-earner, and would abide by any conditions imposed.

The petitioner’s counsel further argued that the mandatory provisions of search and seizure were not adhered to and that the quantity seized was not the “commercial quantity.”

Prosecution’s Opposition and Gravity of the Offence

The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petition, stating that there was prima-facie material available against the petitioner. The prosecution highlighted:

• Commercial Quantity: The seizure of 405 kilograms of Ganja is a massive quantity, classifying it as a “commercial quantity” under the NDPS Act, which attracts a maximum punishment of up to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. The court noted that the statutory definition for Ganja places the commercial quantity threshold at only 20 kilograms, making 405 kilograms highly significant.
• Habitual Drug Dealer: The prosecution characterized the petitioner as a “habitual drug dealer.”
• Risk of Absconding: They argued that granting bail would allow the accused to abscond and potentially tamper with the investigation.

Court’s Legal Reasoning and Denial of Bail

The court’s findings were centered on the mandatory and rigorous requirements of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, which governs bail in cases involving commercial quantities of drugs.

1. The Commercial Quantity Factor

The court established that the quantum of Ganja seized—405 kilograms—was twenty times higher than the stipulated commercial quantity threshold of 20 kilograms. This finding immediately triggered the severe restrictions of Section 37, which holds that bail cannot be granted unless the court is satisfied on two fronts:

a) There are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty of the offence.

b) The accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

2. Reliance on Apex Court Judgments

The court heavily relied on several landmark Supreme Court judgments to justify the stringent approach, including:

• Union of India v. Mohammed Nawaz Khan: This judgment underscored the need for courts to apply stringent parameters under Section 37 and emphasized that even arguments regarding the absence of physical recovery from the accused’s person do not automatically absolve the court of the required scrutiny.
• NCB v. Mohit Agarwal: This ruling clarified that factors like the length of custody or the filing of a charge-sheet are not persuasive grounds by themselves for granting bail under the NDPS Act.
• State of Kerala v. Rajesh: This case defined “reasonable grounds” as “something more than prima facie grounds,” requiring substantial probable cause to believe the accused is not guilty, which necessitates a deeper inquiry uncalled for at the bail stage.

3. Rejection of Petitioner’s Claims

Applying the high bar set by the Supreme Court, the Bengaluru court found:

• Prima Facie Guilt: The court concluded that, based on the seizure panchanama and the initial prosecution papers, there was prima facie material available regarding the petitioner’s possession of the narcotic drug.
• Non-Compliance is a Question of Fact: Regarding the petitioner’s claim of non-compliance with the search and seizure procedure (Section 50), the court noted that the Supreme Court considers this a “question of fact” that must be proven during the full trial, not at the stage of a bail hearing.
• No New Grounds: The court acknowledged that the petitioner’s initial bail plea was already rejected and he had failed to place any additional material before the court to show he was not in possession of the contraband at the time of apprehension.

Conclusion: The court held that the petitioner had not satisfied the dual, mandatory conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, leading it to answer the consideration point in the negative.

Final Order

The court proceeded to pass the following final order:

The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C is hereby rejected.