ORDER

This is an application for regular bail.

2. The petitioner is the third accused in Crime No. 684 of 2021 of Parappanangadi Police Station, Malappuram district, alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

3. The prosecution allegation is that on 11.12.2021 at about

6.10 PM, accused persons, 3 in number, were found riding a motor bike bearing Registration No. 70 X 3997. On interception they were found in possession of 29 grams, 24 grams and 6.50 grams of MDMA respectively and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only 6.50 gms of MDMA was seized from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 11.12.2021 and is in custody since then. Learned counsel further submitted that though the petitioner earlier moved an application for bail before the Sessions Court, Manjeri, the same was rejected as per Annexure-A2 order. Learned counsel further submits that though all the accused were found to be carrying contraband articles only 6.50 gms of MDMA was seized from the possession of the petitioner. It is admittedly only an intermediate quantity and therefore rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not come into play and therefore he is entitled for bail taking into consideration the long period of custody from 11.12.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of this court in Muthu Kumar v. SHO [2008 (2) KLT 890] and also an unreported judgment of this court in Ummer v. State of Kerala in BA No.7960/2022 dated 06.11.2021, wherein bail was granted in a similar case and requested that the petitioner shall also be extended the same benefit granted in those cases.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application for bail mainly contending that the investigating officer on getting reliable information that MDMA which is a narcotic drug is being transported in a motorbike, the same was intercepted and when the search of the person as well as the bag in their possession was conducted in the presence of a gazetted officer, 29 gms of MDMA was found in possession of the 1st accused, 24 gms of MDMA was found in the possession of the 2nd accused and 6.50 gms of MDA from the possession of the petitioner, who is the 3rd accused in the above crime. On verification of mobile phones seized it revealed information regarding the alleged trade of MDMA. Further on verification of the bank account of the accused it was found that there are also monetary transactions between parties and that final report is filed in the case alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and the case is now pending as S.C. No. 704/2022 before the Special Court for NDPS cases, Manjeri. The learned public prosecutor further submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every chance to threaten the witnesses and also to get involved in offences of a similar nature.

6. Admittedly, the contraband was seized from the possession of the petitioner and other accused while they were travelling in a motorcycle. It is true that contraband was seized from the person of each of the accused and that the quantity of narcotic drug seized from the possession of the petitioner is 6.50 gms and the total quantity seized from all the accused persons is a commercial quantity, whereby the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will come into play. The question to be considered is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in the light of the judgment in Muthu Kumar's case supra and Ummer's case supra for the reason that petitioner was found in possession of only 6.50 gms of MDMA. The learned public prosecutor submitted that though only 6.50 gms of MDMA was seized from the individual possession of the petitioner, there are materials revealed in the investigation that the accused have jointly transported the total quantity of contraband and it i