Bombay High Court rejects bail plea in Mephedrone case, citing commercial quantity

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (October 16, 2025) refused bail to Arshad Karar Khan, arrested on February 21, 2024, for allegedly possessing 500g of Mephedrone, holding that the case attracted the stringent bar under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), which restricts bail in cases involving a commercial quantity of narcotics.

Justice Amit Borkar, while dismissing the application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (which deals with regular bail applications), observed that the allegations were “serious in nature” and the recovery of a commercial quantity of narcotics triggered the statutory restrictions on bail.

Background of the case

Mr. Khan was arrested on February 21, 2024, after the Anti-Narcotics Cell intercepted him near Pendhar Bridge Phata, Taloja, Navi Mumbai, based on a tip-off. The police claimed to have recovered a pouch containing 500g of Mephedrone, a weighing machine, plastic bags, and a mobile phone from his possession. The search was conducted in the presence of two panch (independent) witnesses after informing him of his rights under Section 50 of the NDPS Act (which gives the accused the right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer).

The seized material was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panvel, who certified the inventory under Section 52(A) (mandates preparation of an inventory and certification by a Magistrate to prevent tampering). A subsequent report from the Forensic Science Laboratory confirmed the presence of Mephedrone (4-Methylmethcathinone) and Methamphetamine.

The defence argued that the prosecution initially failed to produce a chemical analyser’s report, pointed to alleged discrepancies in seals and delays in sending samples to the laboratory, and claimed that the actual quantity might be less than the commercial threshold. It also cited the applicant’s mobile location data to question the seizure.

Rejecting these arguments, Justice Borkar said, “The allegations against the applicant are serious in nature. The recovery is of 500 grams of Mephedrone, which is a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. Once recovery of a commercial quantity is established, the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands attracted.”

On the statutory presumption under Section 54 (which allows the court to presume guilt if the accused is found in possession of narcotics unless proven otherwise), the court noted, “Once possession of a narcotic drug is established, the burden shifts to the accused to satisfactorily explain such possession or to show that it was not intentional. The applicant, in the present case, has not discharged that burden.”

The Judge emphasised that minor procedural lapses do not vitiate the trial: “The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that minor procedural irregularities which do not cause prejudice to the accused will not invalidate an otherwise lawful seizure.”

The order also underscored the societal impact of drug trafficking and said, “Drug trafficking is not an isolated act. It has wide-ranging social and economic consequences. It destroys families, endangers public health, and undermines law and order.”

Balancing liberty and public interest, Justice Borkar observed, “In the larger interest of society and in keeping with the object of the NDPS Act to curb the menace of drug trafficking, personal liberty must yield to public interest. The applicant is not entitled to the relief of bail.” The bail application was accordingly dismissed.