The court upheld the denial of bail, affirming the procedural compliance in the accused's arrest and that bail could only be granted if reasonable grounds for innocence were shown.

ORDER

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

2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.66/2025 of Excise Enforcement and Narcotic Special Squad, Kozhikode. The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable under Section 22 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 .

3. The prosecution case as narrated in Annexure 1 order reads thus:

“On 25.09.2025 at about 03.30 PM, the accused was found in conscious possession of 55 grams of methamphetamine kept in his residence bearing No.14/408, Adiyassery House, Chathamangalam Grama Panchayat, Chooloor Desom, Poolakkode Village, Kozhikode Taluk.” [sic.]

4. The petitioner was arrested on 25.09.2025, and he has been in judicial custody since then.

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

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated, as he was produced before the jurisdictional court after arrest beyond the period of twenty-four hours. The petitioner therefore seeks his release.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was arrested only at 03:20 p.m. on 25.09.2025, and he was produced before the jurisdictional court on 26.09.2025 at 02:00 p.m.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the decision in Biswajit Mandal v. Inspector, Narcotic Control Bureau [2025 KHC Online 874], submitted that a mere restraint of the accused by the arresting officer amounts to arrest.

9. The learned Public Prosecutor, relying on the Case Diary, submitted that the petitioner was not restrained at any point of time before the formal arrest. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the Investigating Officer conducted a search in his residence, and only at 03:20 p.m. he was arrested. It is relevant that the learned Sessions Judge had considered this aspect in Annexure 1 order, the relevant portion of which is extracted below:

“In this case, there is no material on record to show that the petitioner was effectively detained at 12:00 PM on 25.09.2025 as contended by the petitioner. The search lost indicates that the contraband was seized during the search conducted at 2:50 PM. The arrest was recorded at 3:20 PM, and the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate at 2:00 PM on 26.09.2025. Mere presence of the petitioner in the house at the time of search cannot be construed as curtailment of liberty. The procedural safeguards under Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act were complied with, and the arrest was effected only after seizure. Therefore the dictum laid down in Biswajit Mandal is not applicable to the facts of this case. I find no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner.” [sic.]

10. The ratio of Biswajit Mandal (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, this Court finds that the prosecution has prima facie established that the petitioner was produced before the jurisdictional court after arrest within the mandate prescribed by the Constitution and the relevant statute. The petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence under Section 22 (c) of the NDPS Act.

11. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the rigour contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is applicable in the facts of the case.

12. As per Section 37 of the NDPS Act, if the Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application, the court must satisfy that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and only then can bail be granted. So, as far as the petitioner is