The gravity of narcotic offences warrants rejection of bail in the absence of substantial exculpatory evidence.

ORDER

This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , seeking regular bail.

2. The applicant is the accused No.5 in S.C.

No.2615/2023 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 20 (b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, NDPS ACT)

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that accused Nos.1 to 4 were found in possession of 3 kgs of hashish oil and 101 kgs of ganja at about 10 a.m. on 08.10.2020 in a Mahindra Bolero van bearing registration No.KL-16F-2824 and an Ashok Leyland van bearing registration No.KL-43D-7923 which belongs to the applicant and thereby committed the offences. It is further alleged that the applicant instructed accused No.6 to procure contraband, who after procuring the same handed over to accused Nos.1 to 4.

4. I have heard Sri.P.Mohamed Sabah, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.K.A.Noushad, 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

01.12.2023. A perusal of the case diary would reveal that the accusation against the applicant is very serious, and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on his part. Since the quantity involved is commercial, the jurisdiction of this Court to grant bail is circumscribed by the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Bail can be granted in a case where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

7. The Additional Sessions Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram tried the case originally as S.C. No.734/2021 against accused Nos.1 to 4. At that time, since accused Nos.5 and 6 were absconding, no final report was filed against them. Subsequently, accused No.6 was arrested, his case was committed and tried as S.C. No.837/2023 along with S.C. No.734/2021. Accused Nos.1 to 4 were convicted and accused No.6 was acquitted. Thereafter, applicant/accused No.5 was also arrested and case as against him was numbered as S.C. No.2615/2023. It is now pending before the Additional Sessions Court-I, Thiruvananathapuram. The applicant is in custody since 01.12.2023. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that accused No.6 who is in the same footing as that of the applicant was already found not guilty and acquitted. Therefore, the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be attracted against him and hence, he is entitled for bail. I cannot subscribe to the said argument. A perusal of the final report would show that the allegation against the applicant and accused No.6 is not one and the same. The allegation against accused No.6 is that he procured contraband utilizing the money given by the applicant and handed over to accused No.1. Apart from the said allegation, the specific case against the applicant is that, his vehicle was used for transporting the contraband. The Excise party seized the contraband while shifting the same from the car driven by accused Nos.1 and 2, to the van belonging to the applicant. Moreover, the applicant has criminal antecedents.

8. Having considered the submissions and after having gon