Offences Under NDPS Act A 'Menace' Affecting The Youth: Gujarat HC Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Manufacturing Commercial Quantity Drug

The Gujarat High Court denied regular bail to a man booked under the NDPS Act for being the "main manufacturer" of the contraband Mephedrone which was found to be of commercial quantity, after considering the role stated to be played by the man noting that his act would have effect on the youth of the nation. 

In doing so the court underscored that the offences under the NDPS Act are a menace to the society, are in "vogue these days" which destroy the lives of a substantial chunk of the population and that "this trend has been growing over the years". 

Justice Divyesh A Joshi in his order observed, "In the instant case, the case of the applicant and his role in the entire sequence of events is not as simple as has been projected during the entire course of arguments by learned counsel for the applicant. He is not merely arrested for the small quantity of contraband but has been implicated for his role as being a part of a larger drug trafficking".

The high court noted that the applicant had been charged for "commercial quantity" of Mephedrone weighing 1011.82 grams adding that his bail application needs to be decided as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act. For context Section 37 does not allow granting bail for offences punishable for offences involving commercial quantity unless the two-fold conditions are met. These include hearing the Public Prosecutor; and satisfaction of the court based on reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty of the offence and that he is likely to not commit an offence of a similar nature.

The high court thereafter said, "As per the materials available on record, the applicant accused is the main manufacturer of the Mephedrone drugs, who was manufacturing the contraband drugs and then supplying it in the market through different persons. All requisite procedures had also been followed as per the law and, thereafter, the accused persons came to be arrested. At the time of granting bail, the court has to consider the role played by the applicant-accused in the commission of the offence as well as gravity of offence and in the present case, considering the role played by the applicant in the offence, as the act of the applicant would effect to the youth of the nation, I am of the opinion that the present application is required to be rejected". 

The high court further perused the NDPS Act and observed that "offences prescribed under the Act" are not only a "menace to a particular individual but to the entire society especially, the youth of the country".

It underscored that such offences have a "cascading effect and are in vogue these days, thus destroying the capabilities and lives of a substantial chunk of the population and trend has been growing over the years". To prevent the devastating impact on the people of the nation, Parliament in its wisdom deemed it fit to introduce stringent conditions for grant of bail under the NDPS Act, the court said. 

Finding that the conditions stipulated under Section 37 of the Act are not satisfied and there are no “reasonable grounds‟ to presume the accused as not being guilty of the offence, the court rejected his bail plea. 

The court was hearing the applicant–Pragnesh Thummar's regular bail plea who was booked under Sections 8(c) (No person shall produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, use, consume, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or tranship any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance), 22(c) (Punishment for contravention in relation to psychotropic substances of commercial quantity) and 29 (Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy) of the NDPS Act.

As per the facts, the police received a tip-off that one of the accused–Salman @ Aman Mohammed Hanif Zaveri, a resident of Surat was transporting a narcotic substance in his car and would be passing from Kuvada Tea point to Surat City for selling Mephedrone and upon that information, the necessary procedure was carried out, and raid was conducted. Salman was caught by the police along with the contraband substance Mephedrone worth 1011.82 grams, and after following due procedure in accordance with law, the FIR came to be filed. Eventually the present applicant was also arrested. 

The applicant's counsel argued that the present applicant has not been named in the FIR, and he has been falsely implicated in the present offence on the basis of the statement made by the co-accused during the course of investigation. He submitted that charge-sheet has been filed against in all total 19 persons, out of which, eight persons, having similar or graver role than that of the applicant, have already been enlarged on bail. He has submitted that the contraband substance was not found from the conscious possession of the applicant and he was not caught red-handed on the spot along with the contraband substance.

The State argued that the applicant has studied in Pharmaceutical and is the main manufacturer of the contraband substance–Mephedrone, and he is actively involved in such kind of illegal activity. It said that during the course of investigation, the investigating officer had collected ample and clinching evidences against the applicant which indicated his active involvement in the commission of the crime. It was also submitted that for manufacturing the contraband substance, the applicant taken a house on rent, and the statement of the landlord had also been recorded by the investigating officer who had said that the applicant had taken his house on rent by saying that he is manufacturing the drug medicines to be used in severe diseases. The statement of the persons from whom the applicant purchased chemicals and other relevant materials had also been recorded.

Case Title: Pragnesh Thummar v/s State of Gujarat

Case Citaiton: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 19

Click Here To Read/Download Order