The court established that the rigors of bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act can be relaxed when the evidence against the accused is weak and the investigation is complete.

The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, by the 3rd accused in Crime No.670/2023 of Pothanikkadu Police Station, Ernakulam, registered against the accused (4 in number) for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (in short, the Act). Subsequently, the offences under Sections 27A and 29 of the Act were incorporated. The petitioner was arrested on 15.11.2023.

2.The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 13.11.2023, at around 17.45 hours, the Detecting Officer on getting a secret information, conducted a search in the residence of the 1st accused and seized 20.144 kilograms of ganja. The 1st accused was subsequently arrested. During the course of interrogation, it is revealed that the accused 2 to 4 were involved in the crime. Accordingly, the other accused were arrested. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

3.Heard; Sri.P. Chandy Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime solely on the basis of the confession statement made by the 1st accused, which is inadmissible in evidence in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu [2020 (2) KLD 781]. This Court taking into consideration the above aspects has enlarged the 2nd accused on bail, as per the order dated 05.07.2024 in B.A.No.4949/2024. In fact, the petitioner is better placed than the 2nd accused in the crime. Going by the prosecution case, the contraband was only seized from the residence of the 1st accused. That too, then he was not at the place of occurrence. The contraband involved in the case is just touching the commercial quantity. The weight of the covers in which the contraband were found were not deducted. If that was done the contraband would have been of an intermediate quantity. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Even if the allegations are taken on their face value, the offence only lies against the 1st accused. The petitioner has been languishing in jail for the last 8 months, the investigation in the case is complete, and the final report has been laid on 30.3.2024. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5.The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that there are incriminating materials to prove the petitioner’s involvement in the crime. In fact, the contraband involved in the case is of a commercial quantity. Moreover, Section 27A of the Act has been incorporated. There has been financial transactions between the accused. The petitioner was travelling with the 1st accused in the same vehicle. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing a similar offence. Nonetheless, she did not dispute the fact that the 2nd accused has been enlarged on bail by this Court as per the order in B.A.No.4949/2024 and that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.

6. The prosecution allegation is that, the Detecting Officer had seized 20.144 Kg of ganja from the residence of the 1st accused. During the course of the interrogation of the 1st accused, it is revealed that the petitioner is also involved in the case. Accordingly, the petitioner was implicated in the crime and he was arrested. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 8 months, investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been laid, and further the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.

7. On an overall consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially on considering the fact that the petitioner has been allegedly i