The quantity of contraband, being intermediate, does not warrant the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for bail eligibility.

O R D E R

This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS ), seeking regular bail.

2. The applicant is the accused No.2 in Crime No.939/2025 of Town North Police Station, Palakkad District. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(C) r/w Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 .

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on

07.08.2025 at about 3:00 p.m., the applicant and accused No.1 were found in possession of 24.301 kilograms of ganja in front of the Senior Section Engineer's Office at Palakkad Junction Railway Station, for the purpose of sale and thereby committed the offence.

4. I have heard Smt.Saipooja, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.M.C.Ashi, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

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

6. The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on

07.08.2025. The investigation is almost over. A reading of the final report would show that while the applicant and accused No.1 were standing at Palakkad Junction Railway Station, the police party intercepted them and seized 24.301 kilograms of ganja after complying the statutory formalities and they were arrested. The quantity of ganja seized from the possession of accused No.1 was 14.113 kilograms and the quantity of ganja seized from the possession of the applicant was 10.188 kilograms. It is not in dispute that if the quantity seized from the possession of the applicant alone was reckoned, it would amount to intermediate quantity only.

7. The learned counsel for the applicant relying on the decision in Nadeem Ahamed v. State of West Bengal [2025 KHC OnLine 6704] , submitted that the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of the applicant would come to only 10.188 kilograms of ganja, which would fall under intermediary quantity and hence, the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not get attracted against him. I find force in the said argument. Apart from the fact that the applicant and accused No.1 were found standing together at the Railway Station, in the investigation conducted, there was nothing on record to suggest that there was any conspiracy between them. In the report filed by the investigating officer before this Court dated 23.01.2026, it is stated that the applicant and accused No.1 together went to Odisha and purchased the contraband. However, they could not find out the person who allegedly supplied the contraband to the applicant and accused No.1. It is further stated that, upon examination of the CDR details, nothing could be ascertained. It is also stated that the investigating officer has already given request to the airport authorities to get the travel details of the applicant and accused No.1 with respect to their travel to Odisha to procure the contraband article. However, as of today, there is no sufficient material to prove any conspiracy between the applicant and the accused No.1. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be attributed against the applicant, inasmuch as the quantity seized from his possession is only intermediate quantity. The applicant has criminal antecedents