FAZIL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 10/6/2023 for the offences punishable under Ss. 8(c), and 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985, in Crime No.146 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

(2.) It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are accused of possession of 10 grams of MDMA (METHYLENEDIOXYMETHAMPHETAMINE). Even as per the FIR allegations, the contraband was seized from the first accused in his physical possession from his hip area. Therefore, it is doubtful whether the petitioners have knowledge about the possession of the contraband by the first accused. That apart, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is declared by the official notification that 10 grams of MDMA is a commercial quantity. This is not correct for the reason that the High Court of Orissa in Anil Kumar Dash Vs. State of Orissa reported in 2015 SCC Online Ori 361 observed that 'Where the contravention relates to sub-clause (b) of Sec. 20 of the NDPS Act and the quantity but greater than small quantity which is punishable under Sec. 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS act and not under Sec. 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act".

(3.) In response, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed this petition on the ground that petitioners were in joint possession of the MDMA. Petitioners have no previous cases pending against them.