Massive ₹72 Cr drug bust: Accused in ‘meth precursor’ haul granted bail by Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has granted bail to two men, who were arrested in connection with the alleged seizure of 225.16 kilogram of ephedrine, stated to be the methamphetamine precursor, and valued at around ₹72 crore.

Justice K Sujana observed that the seized substance, ephedrine, is a “controlled substance” and does not attract the rigour applicable to commercial quantities of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

The court was acting on the plea filed by the two accused persons, Maddu Venkata Krishna and Musini Dora Babu, seeking bail after their premises were raided in Jeedimetla and nine bags containing a total of about 225.16 kilogram of ephedrine were allegedly seized.

It was alleged that the accused were conspiring to manufacture and store ephedrine at PNM Life Sciences, a chemical company, clandestinely and were planning to sell the same.

“The contraband is a huge quantity; it does not fall under the commercial quantity under the schedule annexed to the NDPS Act. The petitioners herein are in jail for the last more than 50 days …Hence, this Court deems it fit to grant regular bail,” the court said.

According to the provisions of the NDPS Act, the “commercial quantity” in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances means any quantity greater than the quantity specified by the central government.

Whereas the“controlled substance” is any substance that the central government officially notifies as such because it can be used to manufacture narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, or due to obligations under international conventions.

The NDPS Act provides that the “narcotic drug” includes coca leaf, cannabis (hemp), opium, popy straw and includes all manufactured drugs.

It was argued by the prosecution that ephedrine is a “precursor chemical” that can be easily converted into methamphetamine, a “highly dangerous psychotropic substance” and can be used in “illegal drug production”.

Justice Sujana noted that the petitioners were seeking bail on the ground that the offence alleged against them is punishable under Section 25(a) of the NDPS Act, which does not prescribe any minimum mandatory sentence. It was also argued that the stringent conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply to the present case.

Section 25(a) of the NDPS Act deals with knowingly allowing the use of one’s premises or place for the illegal manufacture, storage, or handling of drugs or controlled substances.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act prescribes stringent conditions for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances or other serious offences under the Act.

In its December 23 order, the high court granted bail subject to conditions, including that the accused shall execute a personal bond of ₹25,000 and appear before the concerned police authority every Wednesday for a period of eight weeks, and thereafter as and when required for investigation.

Advocate R Prasanth, representing Maddu Venkata Krishna and advocate S Ganesh, appearing for Musini Dora Babu argued that the seized substance was only a “controlled substance”, and as such, bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not attract, and the concept of commercial quantity does not apply to “controlled substance” in view of the provisions relating to commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.

On the contrary, state’s counsel, additional public prosecutor D Arun Kumar, stated that the accused have allegedly conspired and collaborated in a “well-organised and highly coordinated illicit narcotics manufacturing operation”.

Arun also submitted that the scale of the conspiracy and the quantity of contraband seized pose a “serious threat to public health and safety”, necessitating a thorough, ongoing, and uninterrupted investigation.

He further pointed out that the involvement of accused persons in manufacturing this controlled substance without authorisation indicates their deliberate and conscious participation in “illegal drug production”.

Mentioning that the investigation is at a crucial stage, he further contended that granting bail at this stage would obstruct the investigation and undermine the efforts of the investigating agency.