Insufficient evidence to connect the applicant with the crime permits bail under the NDPS Act.

O R D E R

This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short, BNSS ), seeking regular bail.

2. The applicant is the accused No.7 in Crime No.

1131/2025 of Kondotty Police Station, Malappuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22 (c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (for short, ‘the NDPS Act’).

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

05.10.2025 at 6.30 p.m., the applicant along with other accused were found in possession of 152.64 grams of MDMA and 0.65 grams of Ecstacy at a place called Kannamvettikkavu, Ambalakkandy, while the applicant and the other accused were sitting inside two cars bearing registration Nos. KL-84C-7458 and KL-84-D-3342 respectively, with intent to sell the contraband and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.P.Mohamed Sabah, 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 contraband was seized from two cars which were halted at an isolated place. The applicant and accused Nos. 5 and 6 were sitting in one car and the remaining two accused were sitting in another car. The contrabands were seized from both the cars. The contraband seized from the car in which the applicant was sitting was intermediate quantity and the contraband seized from the other car was commercial quantity.

7. The learned counsel for the applicant relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Nadeem Ahamed v. State of West Bengal ( 2025 KHC OnLine 6704 ) has cited that inasmuch as, the contraband seized from the possession of the applicant is only intermediate quantity and as there is no material to suggest that he has any connection with the contraband seized from the other car, the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be attributed against him. On the other hand, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that it is not a case where both cars were found on the side of a busy road, but they were found at an isolated place. Therefore, the common intention could be inferred. However, no other material, such as any telephone conversations between the accused or financial transactions, if any, among them, has been found in the investigation conducted so far. In the absence of any other material to connect the applicant with the contraband seized from the other car, and considering that the contraband seized from the car of the applicant is only of intermediate quantity, I am of the view that the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be attributed against the applicant.

8. The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on 19.12.2025. He has no criminal antecedents. However, considering the stage of the investigation and the period of detention already undergone by the applicant, I am of the view that his further detention is not necessary. For these reasons, I do not find any reason to hold that the continued detention of the applicant is required for any purpose.

Hence, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions: -

(i) The applicant shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdict