The court found insufficient grounds to grant bail, highlighting the seriousness of the charges under the NDPS Act.

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 sole accused in Crime No.69/2024 of Excise Range Office, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 8 (c) and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (for short, NDPS Act).

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

12.12.2024 at 06:50 p.m., the applicant was found in possession of 76.372 grams of MDMA and 16.911 grams of Nitrozepam tablets (30 Nos.), for the purpose of sale near Payarummoodu fly over in Payarummoodu-Punnakkulam service road, Kottukal Desom and Village, in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act. Thus, the applicant is alleged to have committed the above said offences. 4. I have heard Sri. K.Mohammed Rafeeq, 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 12.12.2024. 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 learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. A reading of the mahazar would show that when the detecting officer questioned the applicant, he admitted that he was in possession of MDMA and thereafter he took a handbag concealed in the backside of his hip and gave it to the detecting officer. On inspection of the bag, it was found that it contained MDMA. Thereafter, an option was given to the applicant to get the presence of the gazetted officer or an Executive Magistrate to conduct his body search. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, since the option was given after seizure of the contraband from the bag concealed in the body of the applicant, there is violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. I cannot subscribe to the said view. The contraband was not seized by the detecting officer on conducting any body search. On the other hand, the applicant himself took the bag concealed by him on the backside of his hip and handed it over to the investigating officer. Therefore, there is no violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. However, this finding is made for the limited purpose of considering this bail application.

The question whether there is violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act or not is a matter to be decided ultimately in the above crime.

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,