Insufficient evidence for conspiracy or knowledge of possession in narcotics case warrants bail.

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.530/2025 of Tirur Police Station, Malappuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22 (c) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act, for short).

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 27.03.2025 at about 5.35 p.m., the applicant and other accused were found in possession of 141.58 grams of MDMA at the parking ground near Tirur Railway Station and thereby committed the offences alleged. The specific allegation against the applicant herein is that 12.42 grams of MDMA were seized from his possession and he also conspired with accused No.1 for possessing the contraband and thus committed the offences alleged.

4. I have heard Sri.Nireesh Mathew, 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 28.03.2025. The learned counsel for the applicant relying on the decision inNadeem 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 12.42 grams of Methamphetamine, which would fall under intermediary quantity only and hence, the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not get attracted against him. I find force in the said argument. A reading of the case record would show that the police party found the applicant along with the remaining accused standing in a car parking area and on their body search, 119.74 grams of Methamphetamine were seized from the accused No.1 and 12 grams were seized from the possession of the applicant. As stated already, from the possession of the applicant, only 12.42 grams of Methamphetamine was seized, which is an intermediate quantity. The Hon’ble Supreme Court inNadeemAhamed(supra) has held that merely because the two accused, walking side by side, were apprehended simultaneously, and both were carrying narcotic drugs concealed on their body, the said coincidental happening, by itself, would not give rise to an inference that either of them had the knowledge about the contraband being carried by the other. It was further held that positive and tangible evidence was necessary to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that both accused persons had prior knowledge of the contraband in the other’s possession. The learned counsel for the applicant has produced the final report as Annexure 3. There is nothing in the final report to show that there was a conspiracy between the applicant and the remaining accused and the applicant had prior knowledge of contraband in the possession of other accused. Therefore, I am of the view that the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not get attracted against the applicant. He has no criminal antecedents. For these reasons, I do not find any reason to hold that the continued detention of the applicant is required for any purpose. Hence, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions: -