1. The following question of law is involved in this Bail Application: In a case involving an offence under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, can bail be refused on the ground that the accused is involved in other cases for the offence under Section 22(a) of the Act and for offences under the Indian Penal Code?

2. The Petitioner is the accused in Sessions Case No.319 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc II), Ernakulam. The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act'). The Petitioner is in judicial custody since 11-3-2011. He seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The prosecution case is the following: On 11-3-2011, at about 5 P.M., the Sub Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Town North Police Station found the petitioner/accused standing near a bike and two or three persons standing near him. On seeing the police, the other persons ran away. The petitioner/accused tried to escape on the bike. He was intercepted by the police. On search of his body, 10 ampules of diazepam were seized. 97 amplules of Lupegesic were found in a kit hung on the handle of the bike. The accused was arrested. The Bail Applications filed by the petitioner were rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail on the following grounds:(1) The Chemical Analysis Report was not filed along with the charge sheet filed on 23-4-2011. Therefore, it is not valid charge at all.(2) Body search of the accused was not conducted by the detecting officer but it was done by the Gazetted Officer (Circle Inspector of Excise, Ernakulam). Therefore the search and seizure were illegal.(3) No contraband was seized from the accused. It was found on the bike. There is no evidence to show that the bike belongs to the petitioner.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the Bail Application. He submitted that commercial quantity of psychotropic substances was seized from the petitioner. The Psychotropic substances were seized from the person of the petitioner and from the bike used by him. He tried to escape on that bike. It is not necessary that the bike should be owned by the accused in order to attract the offence. The petitioner is involved in six criminal cases including three cases under the NDPS Act. The ingredients of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act are not satisfied in the case and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

6. In answer, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in order to attract the second limb of sub clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it is not sufficient to show that the accused is involved in any offence. It is necessary to show that he is involved in an offence under the NDPS Act and that too an offence involving commercial quantity. The satisfaction of the court should be regarding the likelihood of the accused committing similar offences and not any offence.

7. In Kamalaksha v. S.I. of Police: 2007 (1) KLT 299, a learned Single Judge of this Court (Justice V.Ramkumar) held that it is not necessary to produce the Chemical Analysis Report along with the final report in a case under the Kerala Abkari Act. It was held:"Considering the alarmingly escalating offences relating to narcotic drugs and other intoxicating substances and limited number of Government Chemical Examiners' Laboratories in the State, it may be difficult for such laboratories to promptly cater to the needs of the investigating agencies. But the consequential delay in getting the certificates of analysis need not deter the investigating officers from submitting the final reports before the courts concerned." "The report under S. 173 (2) Cr.P.C. is nothing more than an opinion of the police officer t