For bail under NDPS Act, the accused must prove reasonable grounds for believing they are not guilty and unlikely to re-offend.

ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS for short).

2. Petitioner is the third accused in Crime No.1205/2025 of Pampady Police Station, Kottayam. The above case is registered against the petitioner, alleging offences punishable under Sections 22 (c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances( NDPS) Act, 1985.

3. The prosecution alleges that on 19.10.2025 at about

2:30 p.m., the Sub-Inspector of DANSAF, along with his party, seized 68.9 grams of MDMA from the bedroom of Madathil House, kept in a wall almirah, situated in XIII Ward of Meenadam Grama Panchayath, Meenadam Kara, Meenadam Village, in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act. The DANSAF Sub-Inspector seized the contraband and arrested Accused Nos. 1 to 3 at the spot, and they were thereafter produced before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kottayam.

4. Heard Adv.Francis Assisi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Adv.G.Sudheer, the learned Public Prosecutor and pursued the records.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, who is arrayed as the third accused in the case, is a lady and the wife of the first accused. It is submitted that the third accused is totally innocent of the allegations levelled against her and has been arrayed as an accused solely on the basis of suspicion. According to the petitioner, no contraband was recovered from her conscious possession, and her implication in the case is only on the ground that she is the wife of the first accused, from whose house the contraband was allegedly recovered. The learned counsel further submits that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence and that she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is therefore urged that, as the petitioner satisfies the stringent conditions prescribed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, she is entitled to be released on bail, notwithstanding the fact that the contraband seized in this case is of commercial quantity.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application filed by the petitioner, highlighting the serious nature of the offence alleged in the case. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the contraband seized is of commercial quantity, and therefore the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act squarely applies. It was submitted that there are no materials on record to satisfy the stringent conditions prescribed for the grant of bail in cases involving commercial quantity.

7. As already stated, even according to the prosecution, the contraband was seized from an almirah kept in the bedroom of the house where the first and third accused were residing together, along with their children. The second accused is stated to be a friend of the first accused. There is no allegation that, at the time the DANSAF team reached the house, the third accused was in possession of or handling the contraband. Undisputedly, the contraband was not being handled by her at that time; on the other hand, it was recovered from the almirah in the bedroom, as stated above.

8. From the materials available on record, it is gatherable that the first accused, who is the husband of the petitioner herein, is a history-sheeter involved in several NDPS cases. However, not even a single case has been registered against the petitioner, who is arrayed as the third accused. In the absence of any material indicating her conscious possession of the contraband, it cannot be said that she had complicity in the commission of the offence, although a detailed investigation is required to enter into such a finding conclusively.

9. I am not oblivious of the f