The court reiterated that previous bail refusals under Section 37 of the NDPS Act limit eligibility for future applications regardless of parity arguments.

ORDER

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

seeking regular bail.

2. The applicant is the accused No.5 in Crime No.510/2025 of Kongad Police Station, Palakkad District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22 (c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act').

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 31.05.2025 at about 16.25 hours, at Kundalassery, Ettillathupadi, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were found in possession of 1233.90 grams of Methamphetamine in a Toyota Qualis car bearing registration No.KL-07-AS-0551 which was parked in front of the courtyard of the house bearing door No.III/128, for the purpose of sale. The allegation against the applicant is that he gave financial support to accused Nos. 1 and 2 to purchase the contraband.

4. I have heard Smt. Anupama Subramanian, 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 27.09.2025. 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 first two bail applications were dismissed on the ground that the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted against the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the accused No.3 who stands on the same footing as that of the applicant was granted bail by this Court as per order dated 22.1.2026 in B.A.No.12368/2025. Hence, on the ground of parity, he is also entitled to bail. I went through the said bail order. Considering the allegations made against the accused No.3 and the explanation offered by him for the financial transaction between him and the accused No.1, this Court found that the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted against the accused No.3. But in the case of the applicant, twice this Court found that, the rigor under Section 37 would be attracted against him. Therefore, the order granting bail in favour of the accused No.3 would not constitute a change in circumstance.

The bail application, accordingly, is dismissed.

Sd/-