The court upheld that bail cannot be granted in narcotics cases without clear evidence supporting innocence amidst established serious allegations.

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

2. The applicant is the accused No.2 in Crime No.82/2025 of Sulthanbathery Excise Range Office, Wayanad District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22(c), 27A & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, NDPS Act).

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

08.07.2025, at about 11:15 a.m., the accused No.1 was found in possession of 131.925 grams of methamphetamine and 480 grams of ganja and thereby committed the above said offences.The specific allegation against the applicant is that he hatched a conspiracy with other accused persons for procuring the said contraband by way of giving financial aid and also maintaining regular contact over phone

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 applicant was remanded to judicial custody on

16.09.2025. 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. It is true that no contraband was seized from the possession of the applicant. It was seized from the possession of the accused No.1. The specific case of the prosecution is that the applicant financed the remaining accused to procure the contraband. To prove the same, the investigating agency collected several financial transactions between the applicant and the accused Nos.1, 3 and 4. It is also revealed that the wife of the applicant had financial transactions with accused Nos.1, 3 and 4. The applicant has offered some explanation for the financial transactions between him and the remaining accused in the bail application. But that explanation is not at all convincing. There were a large number of telephone calls between the applicant and the remaining accused. It is also revealed from the investigation that the accused No.1 went to Bangalore to procure the contraband and the bus ticket for the accused No.1 to travel to Bangalore was purchased by the applicant by paying money through his bank account.

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.