The court reaffirmed the principle that granting bail under the NDPS Act necessitates satisfying specific criteria to ensure the accused's innocence and safety of the investigation.

The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , for an order of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in Crime No.02/2024 of the Agaly Excise Range Office, Palakkad, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, the Act).

2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: on

06.01.2024, at around 15.25 hours, the Detecting Officer and party found 7.9 kg of ganja stored in a vehicle bearing registration No. KL-63-H-900. During the course of interrogation, it was found that the car belongs to the first accused and was being used by the second accused.

Thus, the accused have committed the above offence.

3. Heard; Sri. R.S. Anandan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. There is no material to establish that the car belongs to the petitioner. In fact, the car was found in an abandoned state and belonged to the first accused. The petitioner has been implicated as an accused solely on the basis of the surmises and conjectures. The petitioner is a law-abiding citizen and hails from a reputed family. The petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not necessary, and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the application may be allowed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report, inter alia, contending that, in the search that was conducted in the car, the petitioner’s identity cards and other personal details were recovered.

The investigation has revealed that the car was hired by the petitioner from the first accused and was used by him. It was the petitioner who actually dealt with the contraband article. The petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary, and recovery is to be effected.

If the petitioner is granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it will hamper the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

6. The prosecution case is that the Detecting Officer and party had found 7.95 kg of ganja stored in a car. The investigation has revealed that the car was used by the petitioner and belonged to the first accused.

7. On an appreciation of the materials on record, it can be seen that the contraband involved in the case is of an intermediate quantity. However, the conspiracy and the commercial transaction angles are still under investigation.

8. In State of Kerala and others v. Rajesh and others [ (2020) 12 SCC 122 ], the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows:

“18. This Court has laid down broad parameters to be followed while considering the application for bail moved by the accused involved in the offences under the NDPS Act. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh [Union of India v. Ram Samujh, (1999) 9 SCC 429 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1522] , it has been elaborated as under:

“7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is required to be adhered to and followed. It should be borne in mind that in a murder case, the accused commits murder of one or two persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instrumental in causing death or in inflicting death-blow to a number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable; it causes deleterious effects and a deadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the society; even if they are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue their nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicants clandestinely. Reason may be large stake and illegal profit involved. This Court, dealing with the contention with regard to punishment under the NDPS Act, has succinctly observed about the adverse effect of such activities in Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa) [Durand Didier v. State (UT of