ORDER

This is an application for regular bail.

2. The petitioner is accused No.5 in Crime No.864/2022 of Pandalam Police Station, Pathanamthitta District, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 60(3), 8(c) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

3. The prosecution allegation is that, on 30.07.2022, at 3.55 pm, Police Inspector, Pandalam and his party seized 4.480 grams of MDMA from the possession of the 1st accused and 151.490 grams of MDMA from the possession of the 4th accused; total quantity of 155.970 grams of MDMA from Room No.106 of River Walk Hotel, Pandalam. It is also alleged that during search, the police seized electronic weighing machine, plastic covers and also recovered two cars and one scooter. The petitioner and other accused were arrested from the spot.

4 .The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the above said crime and that he was not in possession of any narcotic drug. It is also submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 30.07.2022 onwards. It is further submitted that the investigation is practically over and further detention of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the registered owner of the car bearing Reg. No. KL-83-6479. The 1st accused and the petitioner are friends and on the date of incident, the 1st accused contacted the petitioner and as per his request, the petitioner reached the hotel along with his vehicle. Other than that, he has absolutely no role in the commission of the alleged offence. It is also submitted that the contraband was seized from accused Nos. 1 and 4. It is further submitted that he has no other criminal antecedents.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application for bail mainly contending that commercial quantity of synthetic drug having 155.970 grams was seized from the possession of the accused. Even though the petitioner has earlier moved an application for bail before this Court, the same was rejected as per Annexure B order and that there is no change in circumstances warranting a deviation from the decision taken in annexure B order. It is further submitted that the investigation so far reveals that the petitioner along with accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 conspired together on 28.07.2022 to bring the contraband to the State, from Karnataka. For the said purpose, the 1st accused arranged a car which was taken on rent by the 4th accused and thereafter accused Nos. 4 and 5, as directed by the 1st accused, went to Ilanka in Bangalore and the contraband was handed over to them by the 6th accused who has procured the same from the 9th accused. The petitioner along with the 4th accused transported the contraband to the Kerala State in the car bearing Registration No. KL-53-6479 and they reached room No. 106 of River Walk Hotel at Pandalam, which was taken on rent by the 1st accused and at this point of time, they were apprehended by the police and from the possession of the 1st accused, 4.480 grams and from the shoulder bag of the 4th accused, who came along with the 1st accused, 151.490 grams of MDMA and thereby totally 155.970 grams of MDMA was seized. It is further submitted that the petitioner has active role in the commission of the offence and that the contraband being a commercial quantity, the petitioner is not entitled for bail.

6. Since the contraband article being of commercial quantity, 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 of the NDPS Act. Long period of custody cannot be a reason for granting of bail. I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not successful in establishing that his case will not come within the twin conditions in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Considering the fact that the contraband is of commercial quantity and taking note of the fact that t