IMPORTANT POINT
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; solitary transactions do not constitute financing illicit trafficking under Section 27(A) of the NDPS Act.

ORDER :

P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.8/2024 of Anthroth Police Station, Lakshadweep. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 22(b), 27(A) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) and Section 3(a) of the LPR (Lakshadweep Prohibition Regulation) 1979. Petitioner was arrested on 07.10.2024 and he is continuing in the judicial custody.

3. The prosecution case is that, on 07.10.2024, while a police party was on routine patrol duty, they observed the 1 ^st accused, who is the petitioner herein behaving in a suspicious manner near Panda Mosque, Androth. Acting on suspicion, the detecting officer conducted a body search of 1st accused. During the search, the ofÏcer recovered two packets of contraband concealed inside a Gold Flake cigarette cover, the contraband was identified as MDMA weighing approximately 5 grams in total. After removing the cover, the quantity of MDMA assessed as 4.5 grams. Petitioner was arrested on 07.10.2025. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel appearing for the Union Territory, Lakshadweep.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, admittedly the quantity seized is intermediate quantity and therefore, the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted. The counsel submitted that there is no criminal antecedents to the petitioner. The counsel also submitted that Section 27(A) of the NDPS Act is subsequently added with a view to deny bail to the petitioner. The counsel submitted that according to the prosecution, there is a money transaction between the petitioner and the wife of the 2 ^nd accused. It is submitted that even if there is a single transaction, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in State of West Bengal v Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh [2022 Livelaw (SC) 580] , the Section 27(A) of the NDPS Act is not attracted. The Standing Counsel appearing for the Union Territory of Lakshadweep, seriously opposed the bail application. The Standing Counsel takes me through the report filed by the Investigating officer in this case and submitted that it is a clear case in which Section 27(A) of the NDPS Act is attracted. There is CCTV footage and other materials to show that there is a financial transaction between the petitioner and the wife of the 2 ^nd accused. It is also submitted that there are details of phone calls between accused Nos.1 and 2. Hence, it is submitted that Section 27(A) of the NDPS Act is applicable and therefore, the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted.

6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the quantity of contraband seized is intermediate quantity. It is also an admitted fact that originally the case was registered under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act alone. Subsequently Section 27A of the NDPS Act is added. The respondents rely on the financial transaction between the petitioner and the wife of the 2 ^nd accused, which is narrated in paragraph Nos.4 & 5 of the report filed by the Investigating OfÏcer. It will be better to extract the same:

"4. The offense committed by the accused is extremely serious in nature.

The investigation is

in its final stage. There are clear evidences

that Shanavas KC (A1) has transferred money

and made a phone call to Mohammed

Navab Shareef KI (A2), for importing MDMA

from Kochi to the island. There are evidences

to the effect that the petitioner is a financier and peddler of the drug trafÏcking in the

islands. There are CC Tv footages which shows

that the Al depositing Rs.50,000 in A2's wife's

Account. The CCTV footage from the

Thopumpady Canara branch shows that the A2

withdrawing part of the same amount from

her wife's account .The involvement of others

are