NDPS bail and intermediary immunity were denied where material showed facilitation of psychotropic substance distribution.

Bail under the NDPS Act requires the Court to be satisfied, on the material collected, that the accused is not guilty and will not commit an offence while on bail. On the facts recorded, the Court found strong inculpatory material showing involvement in the prohibited trade and refused bail. The Court also held that Section 79 of the Information Technology Act protects only qualifying intermediaries from liability under that Act, and does not shield companies whose websites were used to facilitate online pharmacies and distribution of psychotropic substances. The immunity plea was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was entitled to bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in view of the material collected in investigation; (ii) Whether the companies could claim immunity as intermediaries or network service providers under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was entitled to bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in view of the material collected in investigation.

Analysis: The alleged drugs were treated as psychotropic substances falling within the statutory prohibition, and the allegations were not confined to personal handling of contraband but extended to facilitation and conspiracy. In bail matters under the special statute, the Court had to be satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accused was not guilty and would not commit an offence while on bail. On the material placed, the Court found overwhelming inculpatory evidence showing involvement in the prohibited trade and sufficient basis to refuse the statutory satisfaction required for release.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to bail.

Issue (ii): Whether the companies could claim immunity as intermediaries or network service providers under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Analysis: The Court found that the companies were not merely passive intermediaries furnishing third-party data. The material indicated that the websites were designed, hosted and used as fronts for operating online pharmacies and facilitating distribution of psychotropic substances. Section 79 grants immunity only in respect of liability under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and cannot protect conduct amounting to offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Conclusion: The claim to immunity under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the Court found sufficient material to deny bail and held that the intermediary immunity plea did not shield conduct alleged to constitute offences under the narcotics .

Ratio Decidendi: Intermediary immunity under the Information Technology Act, 2000 does not extend to conduct found to facilitate offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and bail under the special statute cannot be granted unless the statutory satisfaction of non-guilt is reached on the material before the Court.

---