A Special Court in Bengaluru has rejected the bail application of two men, Srinivas and Mohamad Ajmal, who were apprehended with a substantial quantity of Ganja and MDMA. The order, passed on August 24, 2022, by Smt. B.S. Jayashree, the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS, underscores the rigid legal hurdles faced by those accused of trafficking “commercial quantities” of synthetic and natural drugs.
The petitioners were seeking release under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, following their arrest by the Byappanahalli Police in July 2022. They are currently facing charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Details of the Police Operation and Seizure
According to the prosecution, the case (Crime No. 102/2022) began on July 29, 2022, when Byappanahalli police received a tip-off about two individuals attempting to sell narcotics near the BEML compound on Suranjan Das Road. A police team conducted a raid and intercepted a scooter carrying the two petitioners.
Upon searching the vehicle and the individuals, the police recovered 3 kilograms of Ganja and 17 grams of MDMA (commonly known as Ecstasy). The contraband was seized under a detailed mahazar, and both Srinivas and Mohamad Ajmal were taken into custody.
The Legal Threshold: Small vs. Commercial Quantity
A pivotal aspect of this case lies in the classification of the seized drugs. Under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the severity of the punishment—and the difficulty of obtaining bail—is directly tied to the quantity of the substance involved.
As per Government Notification S.O. 1055(E), the “small quantity” for MDMA is defined as up to 0.5 grams. However, the threshold for a “commercial quantity” is set at 10 grams. In this instance, the 17 grams of MDMA seized from the petitioners significantly exceeds the commercial threshold. While the 3 kilograms of Ganja falls under the “intermediate” category (since commercial quantity for Ganja starts at 20 kilograms), the presence of a commercial quantity of MDMA triggers the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the Act.
Arguments for Bail and Prosecution’s Rebuttal
The petitioners’ counsel argued that his clients were law-abiding citizens who had been falsely implicated. He contended that the mandatory procedures for recovery under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, were not followed by the police. He further stated that the offences, while non-bailable, did not carry a death sentence or life imprisonment, and that the petitioners were willing to provide solvent sureties to ensure their appearance in court.
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petition, labeling the accused as “habitual drug peddlers.” The state argued that if released, the petitioners would likely abscond or return to the illicit drug trade. The prosecution emphasized that the charges under Section 21(c) of the Act (pertaining to commercial quantities of manufactured drugs) carry a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years, which can extend to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.
Judicial Reasoning: The Rigors of Section 37
In her detailed order, Judge B.S. Jayashree highlighted that “negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception” in cases involving commercial quantities. She cited several landmark Supreme Court judgments, including the recent Union of India vs. Mohammed Nawaz Khan (2021) and State of Kerala vs. Rajesh (2020).
These rulings clarify that for a court to grant bail in such cases, it must be satisfied that:
- There are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty of the offence.
- The accused is not likely to commit any offence while out on bail.
The Court noted that “reasonable grounds” means more than just a prima facie case; it requires a substantial probable cause to believe in the innocence of the accused. Given that the petitioners were caught in “conscious possession” of a commercial quantity of MDMA at the scene, the Court found no grounds to believe they were not guilty at this preliminary stage.
Final Verdict
The Special Court concluded that the interest of society in curbing the drug menace outweighs the personal liberty of the accused in trafficking cases of this magnitude. Emphasizing that a “liberal approach” to bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is uncalled for, the Judge rejected the petition, sending a strong message against narcotic peddling in the city.