Commercial Quantity of Narcotics Triggers Stringent Bar on Bail: Karnataka High Court Applies Section 37 NDPS Rigorously in Denying Relief for 70g MDMA Seizure

“There are no grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the said offence and that he is not likely to commit such offence while on bail” – held the Karnataka High Court on 3rd November 2025 while refusing regular bail to a 20-year-old accused arrested with 70 grams of MDMA. In a significant judgment delivered by Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar in Shaik Taheem v. State of Karnataka, the Court reaffirmed the inviolable rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act when commercial quantity contraband is involved. Applying the twin statutory conditions, the Court found no exceptional circumstance that would justify granting bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 439 of the CrPC.

This ruling sends a strong signal that courts will not dilute the statutory restrictions on bail in drug trafficking cases involving commercial quantities, particularly where societal interest and youth vulnerability are implicated.

“Violations of Section 42 and Section 57 Are Trial Questions, Not Grounds for Bail in Commercial Quantity Cases”

The petitioner, accused No. 3 in Special Case No. 105/2025 arising out of Crime No. 193/2024 of Kavoor Police Station, was arrested on 18.12.2024. According to the prosecution, 70 grams of MDMA, along with a mobile phone, were seized from his possession. The quantity falls under the ‘commercial’ threshold under the NDPS Act. The FSL analysis confirmed the presence of methamphetamine in the seized substance.

The petitioner’s counsel raised objections to procedural compliance under Sections 42 and 57 of the NDPS Act, arguing that the seizing officer failed to comply with statutory requirements and that subsequent intimation to superiors was insufficient to cure the illegality. The High Court decisively rejected this line of argument, holding:

“Contention of learned counsel for petitioner that compliance of Section 57... is a matter of trial. The other contention that Section 42... is also not complied with cannot be considered at this stage of considering the bail petition.”

The Court made it clear that in the face of a commercial quantity recovery, such procedural lapses, even if established, do not dilute the bar on bail under Section 37, which requires the Court to be satisfied both that the accused is prima facie not guilty and that he will not commit any further offence.

“Offence Not Just Against Law, But Against Society and Youth”: Bail Refused Despite No Criminal Antecedents

The Court took a stern view of the nature of the offence and its broader implications, refusing to accept the petitioner’s age or lack of prior criminal record as mitigating factors. It was observed that the offence under Sections 21(c) and 22(c) NDPS, involving commercial quantity, attracts a minimum sentence of ten years, which may extend to twenty years with a hefty fine.

Rejecting the argument for leniency, the Court held: “The offence alleged is not only against the society but also against the youngsters. If the petitioner is granted bail, there are chances of him committing similar offence.”

The Court emphasized that drug offences have a corrosive impact on the moral and social fabric, particularly targeting vulnerable youth populations. In such cases, personal liberty must yield to public interest and the stringent policy framework under the NDPS Act.

“FSL Report Confirms Commercial Quantity – Bail Bar Invoked”: High Court Finds No Exception Warranting Departure from Section 37

The key facts accepted by the Court included the seizure of 70 grams of MDMA from the petitioner, the absence of any serious contradiction in the seizure mahazar, and the confirmation from the Forensic Science Laboratory that the substance was methamphetamine. The High Court found these facts sufficient to trigger the application of Section 37’s bar on bail.

The Court observed: “Since the quantity seized is 70 grams, it is a commercial quantity... Therefore, there are no grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty... and that he is not likely to commit such offence while on bail.”

With these findings, the Court rejected the plea under Section 483 BNSS and Section 439 CrPC, stating that the petitioner had failed to discharge the heavy burden cast by the twin conditions of Section 37 NDPS.

Statutory Threshold under Section 37 NDPS Reinforced – Bail Dismissed for 20-Year-Old in Drug Trafficking Case

In dismissing the criminal petition, the Karnataka High Court has once again underscored that bail in cases involving commercial quantity of narcotics is not a matter of routine discretion, but one of strict statutory adherence. The judgment in Shaik Taheem v. State of Karnataka affirms that unless the accused can prima facie establish innocence and assure non-repetition, bail cannot be granted, regardless of age or lack of antecedents.

The High Court’s approach affirms the Supreme Court's consistent line of reasoning that procedural compliance, though mandatory, cannot override the policy objective of deterring drug trafficking through robust enforcement of bail restrictions.

As the NDPS Act continues to operate with one of the harshest bail regimes in Indian criminal law, this judgment serves as a strong precedent for courts handling similar narcotic offences under the commercial quantity category.

Date of Decision: 03 November 2025