Judicial discretion in granting bail under the NDPS Act must operate within the strict confines of statutory requirements.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 22ND MAGHA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 8516 OF 2025 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2025 IN CRMC NO.1708 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT / RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOLLAM PETITIONER/S:

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR RESPONDENT/S:

MUHAMMAD RAZIQ, AGED 24 YEARS S/O ABDUL RASHEED, KIDNGANAZHIKAM, KOLLURVILA NAGAR-121, ERAVIPURAM P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691011 OTHER PRESENT:

PP.SRI.M.P.PRASANTH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS, J.

----------------------------------------

Crl. M.C No.8516 of 2025 -----------------------------------------

Dated this the 11^th day of February, 2026

ORDER

Aggrieved by Annexure 1 order, enlarging the respondent on bail, the State has filed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case. The State's case is that the respondent is the 3rd accused in Crime No. 562/2025 registered by the Eravipuram Police Station, as against the accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 22 (c), 29 and 27(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (Act, in short).

2. The specific case of prosecution is that the accused nos. 1 to 3 had purchased MDMA from New Delhi on the basis of financial assistance provided by the 2nd accused. Although the contraband involved in the case is of commercial quantity, the Court of Session, Kollam, (‘Bail Court’, in short), without looking into the rigour Section 37 of the Act, has enlarged the petitioner on bail solely on the basis of finding that the respondent was implicated as an accused in the crime based on the confession statement made by a co-accused. Annexure 1 order is ex facie erroneous and unsustainable in law.

Hence, the Crl.M.C.

3. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

Although the service of notice is complete on the 1st respondent and there is no apperance for him.

4. The State's principal grievance is that, although the respondent is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 22 (c), 29, and 27(A) of the Act, the Bail Court has, without considering the rigour under Section

37 of the Act, enlarged the respondent on bail.

3. Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985, regulates the grant of bail in cases involving offences under the Act. It is profitable to extract Section 37, which reads as follows :-

“37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.—

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974),—

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27 - A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless— (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail”.

4. A plain reading of the above provision demonstrates that a person accused of an offence under Sections 19, 24 and 27-A of the Act and also involving commercial quantity shall not be released on bail un