Pranav B Prem

In a significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court has denied bail to an accused booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) for allegedly manufacturing and supplying a commercial quantity of Mephedrone. The court highlighted that offences under the NDPS Act are a growing menace, particularly affecting the youth of the nation. Justice Divyesh A. Joshi, while rejecting the bail plea of Pragnesh Pravinbhai Thummar, 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.”

Offences Under NDPS Act Are A Social Menace

The High Court reiterated the seriousness of NDPS Act violations, stating that such offences are not limited to an individual but impact society at large. It further noted: “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.” The court pointed out the alarming rise in drug-related cases, stating that these 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." It emphasized that the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are necessary to curb the devastating effects of drug-related crimes.

Court Rejects Bail Under Section 37 of NDPS Act

The accused was charged under Sections 8(c), 22(c), and 29 of the NDPS Act. The court emphasized that since the case involved a “commercial quantity” of Mephedrone weighing 1011.82 grams, the bail application had to be considered in light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The court clarified that Section 37 places strict conditions for bail in such cases

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),--

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for ¹[offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless--

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.].

 

After evaluating the available materials, the court found that these conditions were not met and ruled: “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.”

Considering the gravity of the offence, the court held: “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.”

Prosecution's Case Against The Accused

The prosecution argued that the accused, a trained pharmacist, was the "main manufacturer" of the contraband drug and was actively engaged in illegal drug production and distribution. The prosecution further submitted that the accused had rented a house for manufacturing Mephedrone, falsely claiming that he was producing medicines for severe diseases. The investigation revealed that the accused procured raw materials and chemicals from different sources, and statements from suppliers corroborated his involvement. The court took note of this evidence, stating: “The investigating officer has collected ample and clinching evidences against the applicant-accused which indicates his active involvement in the commission of the crime.”

Defense's Arguments Rejected

The applicant’s counsel contended that his client was falsely implicated based on statements made by co-accused. It was also argued that the accused was not named in the original FIR and that other co-accused, allegedly having a similar or more severe role, had already been granted bail. Additionally, the defense pointed out that the accused had been in custody since October 2020, and keeping him imprisoned indefinitely would amount to pre-trial conviction. However, the court dismissed these arguments, citing the seriousness of the charges and the overwhelming evidence against the accused. It emphasized that granting bail in such cases could encourage the accused to continue their illegal activities, stating: “There are also all possible chances that the applicant-accused may run away from the trial proceedings and, therefore, to secure his presence, he may not be enlarged on bail.”

Verdict

Denying bail, the Gujarat High Court reaffirmed the legislative intent behind the NDPS Act, which seeks to curb the growing drug menace through stringent bail provisions. It ruled that the accused did not meet the conditions required under Section 37 and concluded: “In view of the aforementioned facts, circumstances, analysis and reasoning, keeping in mind the legal provisions and the underlying intent as well as the mischief that is sought to be curbed by the NDPS Act, this Court is of the considered view 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. Thus, this Court is not inclined to allow the instant bail application as being devoid of any merit and hence, liable to be rejected.”

Cause Title: Pragnesh Pravinbhai Thummar Vs State of Gujarat

Case No: R/Crl Misc. Application (For Regular Bail- After Chargesheet No. 348 of 2025

Bench: Justice Divyesh A. Joshi

[Read/Download order]