Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; violations of NDPS Act provisions are evidentiary matters to be resolved at trial.

ORDER

These Bail application are filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. These bail applications are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these bail applications by a common order.

3. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.665 of 2024 of Aroor Police Station. The above cases are registered against the petitioners and other alleging offences punishable under Sections 20 (b)(ii)C and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

4. The prosecution case is that on18.06.2024 at 2:45 p.m., the accused were found in possession of 20.600 Kg of Ganja for the purpose of sale in 12 plastic covers kept in a trolley bag in a room on the first floor of Kaniyampuram House in Ward No.7 of Aroor Panchayat and were arrested from the spot. Hence, it is alleged that accused committed the offence.

5. Heard Adv.Prabhu K.N, who argued B.A No.9131/2024, the counsel appearing in B.A No.9617/2024 and the Public Prosecutor.

6. Adv. Prabhu K.N, raised several contentions in this case. It is submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act is violated and therefore the petitioners are entitled to bail. Adv.Prabhu K.N, also takes me through Annexure-A1 Inspection Memo and Arrest Memo. It is submitted that these documents are admittedly prepared from the spot at the time of the alleged seizure. But, in these two documents the Crime Number is mentioned. The counsel submitted that in the light of the dictum laid down inJalaludeen A. v. State of Kerala [ 2024 (6) KHC 290 ], the entire seizure is doubtful. The counsel also submitted that there is violation of Section 42 of the NDPS Act.

7. Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the offence alleged against the petitioners include the offence under Section 20 (b)(ii)C and the quantity seized is commercial quantity. Therefore the rigor under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted. The Public Prosecutor submitted that this Court may not grant bail at this stage.

8. This Court considered the contention of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. As far as violation of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act concerned, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioners at this stage. This is a bail application.This Court cannot consider whether there is any violation of the mandatory provisions in a bail application. It is a matter of evidence. The prosecution can adduce evidence and the defence also can adduce evidence and that is to be decided at the stage of trial at the appropriate time. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioners as far as the violation of Section 42 of NDPS Act is concerned.

9. The next contention raised by Adv.Prabhu K.N., is that based on Annexure-A1 documents. Annexure-A1 is the Arrest Memo and the Inspection Memo prepared by the Detecting OfÏcer at the time of seizure. There cannot be any crime number when the case is detected. After detection and preparation of seizure mahazer, Inspection Memo and Arrest Memo the case will be registered only when the ofÏcer concerned reached the police station or excise range ofÏcer, whereever concerned.

10. This Court perused the Inspection Memo and Arrest Memo. In these documents the crime number is mentioned. In Jalaludeen’s case (supra) this point is considered. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above case.

“24. In Santhosh S/o.Ayyappan v. State of Kerala , represented by Circle Inspector of Police, Munnar through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala [ 2021 (5) KHC 214 ], this Court had occasion to consider an arrest memo prepared at the spot of detection in an abkari case, in which crime number was seen recorded. The court held that when crime number is found in a d