The court grants bail by considering the lack of direct involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offense, the investigation's progress, and the absence of criminal antecedents.

ORDER

This petition seeking regular bail has been filed by the 2^nd accused in Crime No.12 of 2026 of Thrikkunnappuzha Police Station, Alappuzha District registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 8 (c), 22(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

2. The prosecution allegation in this case is that on 03.01.2026 at 11.25 p.m., the 1^st accused was found possessing 7 grams of MDMA for the purpose of sale in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act and that it was the 2^nd accused who helped the 1^st accused in procuring the contraband. Hence, the accused are alleged to have committed the aforementioned offences.

3. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the available records.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is baseless and the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in this case on the basis of some conjunctures and surmises. According to the learned counsel, even as per the prosecution allegation, no contraband was seized from the possession of the petitioner, who is arrayed as the 2^nd accused in this case. The learned counsel also highlighted the days of detention already undergone by the petitioner while canvassing bail.

5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application by highlighting the serious nature of the offence attributed against the petitioner. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the source of the contraband is yet to be investigated, and the premature granting of bail will thwart the investigation in this case which is in the threshold.

6. The accusation that the petitioner was engaged in drug pedaling activities along with the 1^st accused in this case cannot be viewed lightly. A perusal of the available records indicates that the accusation against the petitioner is prima facie well-founded. Anyhow, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no contraband was seized from the possession of the petitioner who is arrayed as the 2^nd accused in this case. Even as per the prosecution allegation, it was from the possession of the 1^st accused that the contraband was seized. Moreover, the petitioner was arrested in this case on 03.01.2026 and since then, he has been under judicial custody. As part of the investigation, he has been granted police custody as well. The investigation in this case appears to have progressed substantially and is now on the verge of completion. Likewise, no criminal antecedents are seen pointed out against the petitioner. I am not unmindful of the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor that the source of contraband is yet to be traced out. However, I am at a loss to understand how the continued detention of the petitioner would facilitate the investigation regarding the source of the contraband, particularly since sufficient time has been obtained by the investigating agency to investigate on that aspect. Hence, having regard to the days of detention already undergone by the petitioner and the present stage of investigation, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions;

1. Petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

2. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. for a period of three months or until the final report is filed, whichever occurs first.

3. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the c