The court determined that substantial evidence connected the applicant to the offences, denying bail under the NDPS Act due to seriousness and nature of charges.

O R D E R

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

2. The applicant is the accused No.4 in Crime No.88/2026 of Kottayam East Police Station, Kottayam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22(c), 20(b)(ii)(A) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, NDPS Act). 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on

15.01.2026 at 12:40 pm, the applicant with co accused were found in possession of 14231.8 mg of MDMA, 15645.1 mg of hashish oil with bottle and 2033.6 mg of hashish oil with another bottle (total 17678.7 mg hashish oil) for the purpose of their own use and sale at 12^th number room on the first floor of Thekkanattu Restaurant and Lodge situated in Cholliyozhukkam bhagam, Muttambalam Village, in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Gokul K.S., the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.M.C.Ashi, 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

16.01.2026. 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. The contraband was seized from the room where the applicant was present. The applicant has criminal antecedents and is involved in a crime of a similar nature.

7. The learned counsel for the applicant has also raised a contention that the applicant was not produced before the court within 24 hours of his arrest. I see no substance in the said submission. Annexure A2 would show that the applicant was arrested on 15.01.2026 at 12:57 p.m. and was produced before the Magistrate on the next day at 1:15 p.m. However, the endorsement of the Magistrate in page Nos. 32 and 33 of Annexure A2 would show that the applicant was produced before the Court at 12:20 p.m. on 16.01.2026. However, he was produced before the Magistrate personally at 01:15 p.m., since the Magistrate was held up with judicial function. Hence, the production is within time.

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/-