Bail under NDPS Act requires substantial evidence of innocence; prior criminal history limits bail eligibility.

O R D E R

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

2. The applicant is the accused No.3 in Crime No.449/2025 of Edathala Police Station, Ernakulam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22 (c), 29 and 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (for short, the NDPS Act)

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 10.05.2025 at 04:15 p.m., the police seized 58.73 grams of MDMA and 27 grams of ganja from room No.1004 of Royal Enclave near Manali Mukku, Aluva East Village, which was occupied by accused Nos.1 and 2. On investigation, it is revealed that accused Nos.1 and 2 purchased the same from the applicant and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Anish Abraham, 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

19.06.2025. 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. 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 first bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed by this Court, holding that the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted. There is no change in circumstances. Moreover, the applicant has criminal antecedents.

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 applicant is not guilty of the offences charged. The applicant has not been able to point out the existence of any such facts or circumstances as are sufficient to justify recording a finding that he is not guilty of the offences charged.

Considering the nature of the crime, the gravity of the offence, the complicity of the applicant in it, and the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I am of the view that the applicant cannot be released on bail at this stage. The bail application, accordingly, is dismissed.

Sd/-