The right of the petitioner to bail was upheld due to delays in forensic analysis, affecting the presumption of guilt under NDPS Act.

O R D E R

This is an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

2. The petitioner is accused No.4 in Crime No.294/2025 of Nemom Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner and the other accused are punishable under Sections 22(c), 8(c), 27 A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotorpic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

3. The prosecution case as narrated in Anx.A3 order reads thus:

“ Accused Nos. 1 to 4 hatched a conspiracy to procure and conduct illicit sale of MDMA and in furtherance of the conspiracy accused No.1 visited Bangalore and procured MDMA having 71.32 grams and while he was returning the Tamilnadu SRTC bus bearing registration TN 74 N 2094 on 02/03/2025 at about 12:00 AM and reached Pravachamblam junction in Thiruvananthapuram, the Inspector of police Nemom intercepted the bus and detected the contraband from the possession of accused No.1. During investigation it was realized that accused Nos. 3 and 4 transferred money through electronic transfer to the account of accused No.2 and there was a conspiracy hatched among them. Thus the accused alleged to have committed the alleged offence. ”(sic)

4. The petitioner was arrested on 08/07/2025 and he has been in judicial custody since then.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Senior learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that accused Nos.1 and 3 were granted regular bail by the Sessions court, Thiruvananthapuram, as per Annexure A4 and A5 orders. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail applying the principle of parity.

7. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of the petitioner and submitted that the rigour contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act is applicable to the facts of the case. Annexure A4 and A5 orders reveal that accused Nos. 1 and 3 were released on bail on the ground that there is inordinate delay in getting the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The relevant portion of the order granting bail to accused No.1 reads thus -

“13. The contraband involved in this case is 71.32 grams of MDMA, which is a commercial quantity. However, it was not confirmed by chemical analysis. Rule 14 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 says that

14. Expeditious Test.- The chemical laboratory shall submit its report to the court of Magistrate with a copy to the investigating officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the sample. So far such a report has not been received in this case

15. Without the chemical analysis report, it cannot be conclusively determined that the contraband seized was MDMA. The chemical analysis report is crucial in establishing the exact nature of the contraband and determining the appropriate legal implications. Therefore, in absence of the analysis report, in contravention of statutory provisions, it can not be held that there is prima facie case regarding the commission of the offence. He has no criminal antecednts and hence there is no apprehension of reoffending.

16. Additionally, considering the period of custody (143 days), I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted bail. The apprehension of the respondent can be safeguarded by appropriate conditions. In that light, the petition is allowed and the petitioner-accused is ordered to be released on bail in the following conditions:”

8. The case of the petitioner is that the FSL has not submitted the report so far. The prosecution has not placed any materials to show that the FSL examination will be concluded in