ORDER

This is an application for regular bail.

2. The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.112/2022 of Malalppuram Police Station alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)C and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances(NDPS) Act.

3. The prosecution allegation is that, on 16.02.2022, at 10.35 pm, at Kadungooth, on Perinthalmanna road, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were found to have transported 22.125 Kgs of ganja in a car and on interrogation of the 1st accused, he gave statement that ganja was purchased by him and the petitioner, from Andhra Pradesh and thus, the accused have committed the aforesaid offence. 4 .The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 18.02.2022 and he is in custody since then. Though the petitioner moved an application for bail before the Special Court for SC/ST(POA) Act & NDPS Act cases, Manjeri, the same was rejected by A2 order. It is contended by the petitioner that he has been brought into the alleged crime only on the confession statement of the 1st accused and there are no other materials to connect him with the alleged offence.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, submitted that on investigation, sufficient materials have been collected to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. It is also submitted that the petitioner has gone to Andhra Pradesh along with the other accused for purchase of the alleged contraband and on verification of the tower locations, it is clearly revealed that the petitioner was at Andhra Pradesh at the relevant point of time. It is also submitted upon instructions that on investigation it is found that the 1st accused went to Andhra Pradesh and have a dealing regarding the purchase of contraband with one Rahul, who is an agent and it is also revealed that the said Rahul has sent the phone-pe QR Code and account details of his mother to the mobile phone of the petitioner herein. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that other than the confession statement of the 1st accused, there are materials to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime.

Since it is a case where a commercial quantity of ganja is involved, the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will come to play. No substantial contentions have been raised by the petitioner to get over the rigor of Section 37. Long period of custody cannot be a reason for granting of bail. I feel that the petitioner is not successful in establishing that his case will not come under the rigor of the twin conditions mentioned in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In view of the same, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.