Mumbai: In a significant ruling, the Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Greater Bombay, has granted bail to Jahid Imamuddin Ansari alias Javed, 48, who was arrested in connection with a drug seizure. The order, delivered on January 14, 2019, by Special Judge (NDPS) Shri U. M. Mudholkar, hinged on the court’s interpretation of “commercial quantity” for the seized substances, which was found to be below the stipulated limit.

Ansari, a resident of Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai, was arrested in C.R. No. 86/2018, registered at Meghwadi Police Station, for alleged violation of Section 8(c) read with Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985. These sections broadly relate to the prohibition of certain activities concerning narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, and the punishment for contravention in relation to psychotropic substances where the quantity is less than commercial but greater than small.

The Prosecution’s Case and Seizure Details

The prosecution’s case, in essence, was that Meghwadi Police Station officers received reliable information about an individual selling contraband. A raid was consequently arranged, leading to the apprehension of Ansari. It was alleged that he was found in possession of:

• 94 strips, each containing 15 tablets, of Nitravet-10.
• 475 strips, each containing 10 tablets, of Alko-1 Alprazolam.
• 109 bottles containing Codeine Phosphate.

Following his arrest and police custody, Ansari was placed in judicial custody.

Defense Arguments: Quantity and Procedural Compliance

Mr. Bhanushali, the learned advocate for the applicant, argued that Ansari was innocent, a hardworking individual, and had been falsely implicated. A key contention was that the quantity of contraband allegedly seized from Ansari fell under the “non-commercial quantity,” thereby lifting the stringent rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Section 37 imposes strict conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities, requiring the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail.

Furthermore, the defense claimed that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with during the arrest and seizure. Mr. Bhanushali also highlighted that Ansari is a permanent resident of Jogeshwari, Mumbai, with deep roots in the community, minimizing the risk of his absconding. He assured the court that Ansari was ready to abide by any conditions imposed for bail and noted that the investigation was “almost completed.”

State’s Opposition: Commercial Quantity Claim

The State, represented by learned APP Mr. Panjwani, contested the bail application through three separate replies filed on December 21, 2018, January 9, 2019, and January 14, 2019. The prosecution primarily argued that the contraband was seized following strict adherence to NDPS Act provisions and, crucially, that the quantity of contraband seized fell under the “commercial quantity” category, thus attracting Section 37 and rendering Ansari ineligible for bail. The State also expressed apprehension that if released, Ansari might abscond or re-engage in similar illicit activities.

Court’s Analysis: Interpreting “Commercial Quantity” in Mixtures

The crux of the court’s deliberation revolved around the calculation of the “commercial quantity” for the seized substances, particularly Codeine Phosphate, Nitravet, and Alprazolam.

Mr. Bhanushali cited a judgment from the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in Shahabuddin and another V/s. State of Assam (2012 (3) GAU LT 440), which, in turn, relied on Micheal Raj V/s. Intelligence Officer of NCB (2008 5 SCC 161) and Sayyad Aalam V/s. State of Assam (2011 Cr.L.J. 3140). He also referred to the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision in Ankush Chauhan V/s. State of H.P. (Cr.M.P. (M) No. 432/2017 decided on April 25, 2017). These precedents, according to the defense, supported the argument that only the pure drug content, and not the entire mixture or solution, should be considered for determining the commercial quantity.

The court extensively referred to a recent judgment from the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Rajveer Singh @ Raju V/s. State of Punjab (CRM-M-35080-2018 decided on August 12, 2018). This judgment explicitly held: “In view of the above discussion, it is held that in case of a mixture/solution containing neutral or non-psychotropic substance as well as the narcotic/psychotropic substance, it is only the quantity of such narcotic/psychotropic substance present in such mixture/solution; which is to be taken into counting for the purpose of determining the ‘commercial quantity’ of such narcotic/psychotropic substance. The neutral solution or non-psychotropic substance is not to be counted towards the commercial quantity of said narcotic psychotropic substance present in mixture/solution.”

The learned APP Mr. Panjwani failed to present any counter-judgment that would support a contrary view.

Calculations and Outcome

Applying the methodology established in the cited judgments, the court proceeded to calculate the actual quantity of the narcotic/psychotropic substances:

• Codeine Phosphate: From 109 bottles, the total quantity of Codeine Phosphate was calculated to be 1.90 grams. As per Entry No. 28 of the table, the commercial quantity for Codeine Phosphate is 1 Kg (1000 grams) and above. The small quantity is 10 grams. Therefore, 1.90 grams is significantly below the small quantity.
• Nitravet: The exact quantity of Nitravet in 1410 tablets was determined to be 14 grams.
• Alprazolam: The exact quantity of Alprazolam in 475 tablets was determined to be 4.75 grams.

The court concluded that “these quantities either taken individually or collectively do not cross the limit of commercial quantity.” Consequently, the parameters for granting bail, as seen in the Ankush Chauhan case, were squarely applicable to Ansari’s case.

Bail Granted with Conditions

The court further noted that Ansari had been in custody since November 28, 2018, and by the time of the bail application, the investigation was likely completed, barring the collection of the Chemical Analyzer (CA) certificate. It was also observed that there was no likelihood of tampering with evidence, as most witnesses were public servants, and nothing further was to be recovered from the applicant. Acknowledging the likely “sufficient long time” for the conclusion of the trial, the court deemed it “not desirable to keep the accused behind the bars till then.” There was also no evidence or allegation of prior criminal antecedents. Ansari’s AADHAR Card and Ration Card established his fixed place of residence, minimizing the chance of him absconding.

In light of these considerations, the court ruled that Ansari’s continued detention was unwarranted and allowed the bail application with stringent conditions to secure the prosecution’s interest.

Jahid Imamuddin Ansari alias Javed has been released on bail upon executing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy-Five Thousand only), with one or two sureties in the like amount. The conditions for his bail include:

• Not directly or indirectly dissuading any prosecution witnesses from deposing in court or tampering with prosecution evidence.
• Not indulging in similar illegal activities while on bail.

The application, NDPS Bail Application No. 943 of 2018 in NDPS Remand Application No. 1223 of 2018, has been disposed of. This judgment reaffirms the judiciary’s adherence to precise legal interpretations concerning drug quantities under the NDPS Act, offering relief to accused individuals where the actual quantity of controlled substances, rather than the entire mixture, dictates the applicability of stricter bail provisions.