Landmark Legal Analysis on Bail and NDPS Act

A recent legal case has brought to light a groundbreaking analysis on bail and the NDPS Act by the court. The judgment delves deeply into the provisions of the Act and sets a new precedent in legal analysis. This has far-reaching implications for future cases and could potentially reshape how bail is approached in similar situations. Stay tuned for more insights on this significant development.


  • Complaint filed under the N.D.P.S. Act against Shivaprakash, Ragini Dwivedi, Veeren Khanna, Prashanth Ranka, Vaibhav Jain, Adithya Alva, Lume Pepper @Simon, Prashanth Raju, Ashwin @ Boogi, Abhiswamy, Rahul Tonse, Vinay and others.
  • Request for suitable legal action based on the complaint.
  • Enclosed copy of Statement by B.K.Ravishankar and Whatsapp messages.
  • Appellant’s bail application was rejected by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge on 28.09.2020.
  • The rejection was based on the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
  • High Court, in the impugned Judgment dated 03.11.2020, also rejected bail.
  • High Court relied on B.K.Ravishankar’s statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and the case diary.
  • The parameters set out in Section 37 of the NDPS Act were considered in rejecting bail.

Also Read: Court’s Jurisdiction in Re-appraising Arbitrator’s Findings


  • The investigation revealed that a network was involved in illegal drug activities and financial transactions.
  • Drugs were sourced from different states in India and even from foreign countries.
  • The drugs were supplied in Five Star Hotels, Pubs, Dance parties, Music programs, and Farm Houses in Bangalore.
  • The targeted attendees included Industrialists, Celebrities, Actors, Actresses, DJs, Software Employees, and others.
  • Specific messages were exchanged between the accused and drug peddlers regarding the quality and quantity of drugs.
  • The investigation began based on information gathered from known sources and messages sent by the accused to the peddlers.
  • Search of the appellant’s premises did not yield any drugs.
  • The case against the appellant is primarily based on a statement and case diary.
  • The appellant was charged on conspiracy grounds, which was found to be tenuous by the High Court.
  • No chargesheet has been filed till date.
  • If any offence is made out, it would be under Section 27 for consuming drugs at parties.
  • The maximum sentence for such consumption is one year under Section 27(a) and six months under Section 27(b).
  • Section 37 was wrongly invoked by lower courts and the High Court.
  • Enlarging the appellant on bail as Section 37 does not apply.
  • Observations in this judgment should not affect the investigation or trial.

Also Read: Contrary Directions in Issuance of Letter of Intent


  • Leave granted for the SLP (CRL.) No. 6185 of 2020.
  • Impugned Judgment of the High Court is set aside.
  • Appeal allowed.
  • Judgment in SLP (Crl.) 5998 of 2020 applies in this case as well.
  • In case of arrest in connection with Crime No 588/2018 at Police Station Banasawadi, Bengaluru, appellant to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.
  • Appellant (Shivaprakash) granted anticipatory bail.

Also Read: Application for Stay in Civil Suit Rejected: Court’s Legal Analysis


Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000062-000062 / 2021

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *