Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 24122
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
SHIHABUDHEEN.P – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Application | 1898 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH, SRI.LIBIN STANLEY, SMT.SAIPOOJA, SRI.SADIK ISMAYIL, SMT.R.GAYATHRI, SRI.M.MAHIN HAMZA, SHRI.ALWIN JOSEPH, SHRI.BENSON AMBROSE
For the Respondents: SMT.SREEJA V.
The denial of bail is upheld due to the applicant's involvement in ongoing criminal activities under the NDPS Act despite intermediary possession.
Headnote:The applicant seeks bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, being the accused No.5 in Crime No.1131/2025 for alleged possession of MDMA and Ecstasy. The court found insufficient evidence linking the applicant to the crime, yet denied bail due to involvement in another NDPS Act offense. The dismissal of the bail application was justified based on these findings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the bail application and the allegations. (Para 2) |
| 2. court observations on the evidence and rationale for bail denial. (Para 4 , 7 , 8) |
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.5 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 Smt. Sreeja.V, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.
5. The applicant is in custody since
06.12.2025. 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.6 and 7 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.
8. I find some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that the quantity seized from the possession of the applicant is only intermediate quantity. However, considering the fact that the applicant is involved in another crime under Section 22 (c) of the NDPS Act, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this stage.
The bail application, accordingly, is dismissed.
