Point of law: whether there was compliance of the procedure laid down under Section 42 of the NDPS Act or not, could be ascertained at the time of trial.

ORDER :

Petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.658 of 2021 of Koratty police station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii) C and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'the NDPS Act'). This application is filed seeking their release on bail.

2. The prosecution case in brief, is that on 24.07.2021, at about 5.15 a.m the Sub Inspector of police, Koratty police station received a reliable information that ganja is being transported in large scale in a lorry bearing No.KL-63-3428 as well in a car bearing No.KL-49-K-6022 through the NH road within his police station limits from north to south. Immediately after reporting the information received to his superior officer he along with his team proceeded to the NH road and started to observe the vehicles passing through the road. While so, at about 6.30 a.m, the above vehicles were found coming through the road. So the police team headed by the SI intercepted the vehicles near the Government Press, Koratty and on questioning the persons found inside the vehicles disclosed their names. After complying with the legal formalities they started checking of the vehicles and the accused were found together transporting 209.700 kg of ganja packed in sacks in the lorry bearing No.KL-63-3428 and in the car bearing No.KL-49 K-6022 for illegal sale. They were arrested and the contraband were seized after complying with the required formalities from both the vehicles and thus the FIR was registered before the Koratty Police Station under the aforementioned sections.

3. The petitioners are in custody since 24.7.2021.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that they are totally innocent of the allegations leveled against them and even if the prosecution story is believable, only 28.7 kg of ganja was found in the car bearing No.KL-49-K/6022 in which they were travelling along with another person. So they were not found in possession of huge quantity of ganja as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, this application for their release on bail.

6. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor on the other hand has opposed the application and contended that the detection of the contraband was pursuant to a reliable information received by the SI of Koratty Police Station. On getting the information, after complying with the legal formalities under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, the police team headed by the SI waited in the bus stop near the Government Press, Koratty keeping all the vehicles passing through under surveillance and intercepted the lorry as well as the car and thus the petitioners were arrested along with the other accused. On interrogation it was revealed that the ganja was procured by them together and transported in the lorry as well as in the car. The search was conducted as contemplated under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and all the mandatory requirements for the seizure and search were correctly complied with. The narcotic items found concealed in the lorry and the car were seized by the S.I. and his team and there was no violation of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act is the stand taken by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is also reported by the learned Public Prosecutor that the 1st petitioner/the 1st accused is having criminal antecedents as he is involved in another crime registered before the Wadakkanchery police station, granting of bail at this stage will definitely affect the investigation of the case adversely. The prosecution has also opposed the application contending that the transportation of narcotic items in the car as well in the lorry was after procuring the same together from the 6th accused, who is yet to be arrested.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised the plea of false implication and submitted that they were not found in exclusive possession of drugs and so if