RAHUL RAI V STATE OF KERALA BAIL APPL. NO. 9150 OF 2024

FACTS:

In this case the accused was caught by the police on 04/10/2024 with possession of 6.59 gm of Charas, 13.2gm of Ganja, 226gm of Psilocybin contained magic mushroom and 50gm Psilocybin contained magic mushroom capsules, while travelling in the ISUZU V-cross Car. Subsequently he was charged with Section 22(c) & 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

ISSUES:

The court whilst examining the evidence identified that the charas and ganja seized from the petitioner are small quantities and are not incriminating. The question to be decided is whether the mushroom and magic mushroom capsules together can be considered as commercial quantity and if so what the punishment that should be dished out is.

JUGDEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Court decreed that, The petitioner shall be released on bail upon executing a bond of rupees one lakh with two solvent sureties of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court. The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as required, cooperate with the investigation, and refrain from making any inducement, threat, or promise to dissuade individuals acquainted with the case facts from disclosing them to the court or police. Additionally, the petitioner is prohibited from leaving India without prior permission from the jurisdictional court and must not commit any offense similar to the one they are accused of or suspected of. Any violation of these conditions may result in the cancellation of bail by the jurisdictional court, which the prosecution is free to request in accordance with the law.

The Court understood that the Psilocybin content in mushrooms will be 1% per one gram of dried Psilocybe cubensis mushrooms. This Court also perused the analyst report in this case, and the report gave credence to the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner that was not in possession of commercial quantity of psilocybin. If commercial quantity is not applicable, the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable said the court and grated the bail application with several conditions. 

ANALYSIS:

In this case the court followed the letter of law, and identified that the accused was not in possession of any commercial quantity of substance. Moreover the contraband seized will not come within the purview of “commercial quantity” and hence, Section 22(c) of the Act 1985 is not applicable. The accused was a Cyber Security Analyst working for Dell Computers in the United States of America and he came to India in connection with his mother, who has renal failure and had a kidney transplant. This background of the accused along with his willingness to abide by any condition imposed by the Court also aided in the granting of bail.