IMPORTANT POINT
Prolonged trial delays caused by prosecution can justify bail, overriding statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, in light of the right to personal liberty under Article 21.

ORDER

This is the third application for regular bail filed by the petitioner, who is the 2 ^nd accused in Occurrence Report No.1 of 2022 of Narcotics Control Bureau, Kochi, Ernakulam.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Narcotics Control Bureau (`NCB’ for short). Perused the records.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that, 80 grams of MDMA was seized from the possession of the 1 ^st accused, at about 12.30 pm on 09.11.2021. Thereafter, the 1 ^st accused was arrested and has been detained in custody. Further investigation revealed the involvement of accused Nos. 2 to 7 in this crime. The specific allegation of the prosecution against the 2 ^nd accused is that, the 2 ^nd accused had arranged a lodge to the 1 ^st accused to collect the contraband which was seized from his possession and also he had paid rent for the said room. That apart, the petitioner also effected payment of money to the other accused, in the matter of purchase of the contraband. The petitioner was arrested on 29.01.2022 on the basis of the said allegations. In this matter, prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 22(c) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (`NDPS Act’ for short), by accused Nos.1 to 7.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the prosecution materials are quite insufficient to connect the petitioner in this crime. Merely, relying on the confession statement of the other accused, he was booked and detained in custody. It is also argued that, in the confession statement, given by the 1 ^st accused, as on 22.11.2021 or thereafter, on 13.01.2022, nothing stated as to involvement of the 2 ^nd accused, though he had referred the names of certain other accused in this crime. Referring to the confession statement of the 1 ^st accused, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed plea of absolute innocence in so far as the petitioner is concerned and also submitted that confession statement is inadmissible in evidence. While pressing for grant of regular bail, on the above substratum, it is submitted that in the facts of the given case, the rigor under Section 37 is not applicable.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, 2 earlier applications for bail filed by the petitioner were dismissed by this Court, on the prima facie finding that the petitioner also has involvement in this crime and on holding that the rider under Section 37 of the NDPS Act could not be diluted in the instant case, where commercial quantity of contraband, to the tune of 80 grams of MDMA, was seized. But the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the change in circumstances to take a different view in this matter. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per Annexure-A1 order (order in B.A.No.7182/2023 dated 17.11.2023), this Court directed the Special Court to dispose of the case without fail, with liberty to the petitioner to apply for bail again, in case the trial could not be completed within a period of six months from 28.10.2023. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even though trial started, the same not so far completed. It is submitted that, after completion of the prosecution evidence, the prosecution side produced additional witnesses with the prayer to summon them also. But the trial court disallowed the same. Challenging the said order, Crl.M.C.No.8400/2024 has been filed and Annexure A2 stay order has been passed therein. It is submitted further that even though Crl.M.C.No.8400/2024 was disposed of on 06.01.2025, the direction was to reconsider the prayer in a fresh application to be filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C and nothing beyond that. It is submitted further that the accused, though alleged to be involved in a