In drug-related cases, especially involving commercial quantities, bail is denied if there is no reasonable ground to believe the accused is not guilty.

ORDER

This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail.

2. The applicants are the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No.1059/2025 of Kondotty Police Station, Malappuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22 (c), 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, NDPS Act).

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

11.09.2025, the Inspector of Police, Kondotty Police Station had seized 50.61 grams of MDMA from the joint possession of the applicant Nos. 1 to 3 while they were occupying room No.203 in the Redbell Residency lodge in contravention of the NDPS Act.

4. I have heard Sri. P. Mohamed Sabah, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri. M.C. Ashi, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicants with the alleged crime; hence, they are 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 applicants, and they are not entitled to bail at this stage.

6. The applicants were remanded to judicial custody on 11.9.2025. A perusal of the case diary would reveal that the accusation against the applicants is very serious, and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on their part. Since the quantity involved is commercial, the jurisdiction of this Court to grant bail is circumscribed by the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Bail can be granted in a case where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

7. The contraband seized from the possession of the applicants on chemical analysis was found to be Methamphetamine. The total quantity of the contraband seized form the possession of the three applicants would come to 50.61 grams. It is commercial quantity. All the applicants were found in a closed room in a lodge. 42.17 grams of Methamphetamine was seized from the possession of the applicant No.1, 5.22 grams was seized from the possession of the applicant No.2 and 3.22 grams was seized from the applicant No.3. The learned counsel for the applicant relying on the decision of this Court in Mushaque Ahammed @ Muthu and Another v. Sub Inspector of Police, Malappuram and Another (2020 KHC 310) submitted that, since the contraband seized from each of the applicants would fall within the intermediate quantity, the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted. I cannot subscribe to the said submission. This is a case where all the applicants were found in a closed room in a lodge. That apart, a reading of Annexure 1 mahazar would show that the excise party found an electronic weighing machine, one glass funnel and zip lock covers on the bed in the room. All these circumstances would suggest that all the applicants together brought and possessed the total quantity of the contraband seized from all of them.

8. Having considered the submissions and after having gone through the materials on record, I am afraid that there are no substantial or probable causes for believing that the applicants are not guilty of the offences charged. The applicants have not been able to point out the existence of any such facts or circumstances as are sufficient to justify recording a finding that they are not guilty of the offences charged.

Considering the nature of the crime, the gravity of the offence, the complicity of the applicants in it,