Insufficient evidence can render the rigour of NDPS Act inapplicable for bail considerations.

O R D E R

Both these applications have been filed under Section

483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail.

2. The applicants are accused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.778/2025 of Ernakulam South Police Station. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22 (c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

3. The prosecution allegation is that the accused Nos.1 and 2 were together found in possession of 12.8953 grams of MDMA with the purported intention of selling the same on 22.10.2025 at about 11:55 p.m. at Hotel Kochin Park Lodge, Ravipuram, Ernakulam, and the MDMA was supplied by accused No.3 to the accused Nos.1 and 2.

4. I have heard Sri. Jison Joy, the learned counsel for the applicants and Smt. Maya M.N, the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicants with the alleged crime; hence, they are entitled to get bail. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicants, and they are not entitled to bail at this stage.

6. The role of accused No.3 has not been mentioned in the FIR at all. The allegation against him is that he procured and delivered MDMA to accused Nos.1 and 2. The accused No.3 has been implicated on the basis of the confession statement of the accused Nos.1 and 2. The prosecution records reveal that after arrest, on questioning the accused No.3, he also confessed the crime. However, it is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. The State of Tamil Nadu , (2013) 16 SCC 31 that confession recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is not admissible. Apart from the confession statement, the prosecution relied on the transactions found in the mobile phone of the accused No.3 and the accused Nos.1 and 2. That alone cannot be a factor to connect the accused No.3 with the crime. That apart, the case records would reveal that only 7.1081 grams of MDMA were seized from the possession of the accused No.1 and 5.7812 grams were seized from the possession of the accused No.2. Those contrabands, if taken separately, would fall within the intermediate quantity only.

7. The prosecution allegation is that on receiving secret information, the detecting officer and party reached a hotel namely, Kochin Park Lodge, which was run by accused No.2. When Excise party reached there, accused Nos.1 and 2 were there. Even though rooms in the hotel were searched, no contraband could be found. The contraband articles were separately seized from the body of accused Nos.1 and 2 after complying Section 50 of the NDPS Act. In the investigation conducted so far, there is nothing on record to suggest that the accused Nos.1 and 3 procured this contraband together so as to attract Section 22 (c) of the NDPS Act.

8. For these reasons, I am of the view that the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted in these cases. The applicants were arrested on 23.10.2025 and they have been in judicial custody since then. I do not find any reason to hold that the continued detention of the applicants are required for any purpose. Hence, the applicants are entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, the applications are allowed on the following conditions: -

(i) The applicants shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to