Court determines bail eligibility based on gravity of charges and prior conduct.

O R D E R

Dated this the 29^th day of January, 2026 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.1 in Crime No.238/2022 of Valanchery Police Station, Malappuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22(c), 29(1) and 27A of the NDPS Act .

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

01.05.2022 at about 04:00 p.m, while the accused Nos.1 to 3 were travelling in a car, the police party, during a routine vehicle check, intercepted the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-55-AA-8560. Upon conducting a body search and a search of the vehicle, the police allegedly seized 163 grams of MDMA and arrested the accused.

4. I have heard Sri. Justin K.K., the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. Sreeja.V, 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 15.11.2025. 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. The applicant was granted statutory bail in this case. However, his bail was cancelled since he was involved in another crime of similar nature involving commercial quantity. He surrendered before the trial court and he was remanded to custody. Now he is in custody since 15.11.2025. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was granted bail in the subsequent crime. Annexure 3 is the said order, which would show that he was granted bail on the ground of long incarceration. At any rate, since the applicant has committed a similar offence during bail in this crime, he cannot be released on bail. The learned Counsel for the applicant also submitted that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the applicant. The applicant cannot take up such a contention, inasmuch as he was granted statutory bail after his first arrest and later on was re- arrested for the reason that he violated the bail conditions. Considering the nature of the crime, the gravity of the offence, the complicity of the applicant in it, and the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I am of the view that the applicant cannot be released on bail at this stage. The bail application, accordingly, is dismissed.

Sd/-