NDPS Section 37 bars bail for commercial quantities without reasonable grounds believing non-guilt and no reoffending risk.

ORDER

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.3 in Crime No.2108/2024 of Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 8 (c) read with 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 30.12.2024 at 9.25 am, in front of Amma Stores situated near Kayamkulam KSRTC bus stand, a Child in Conflict with Law(CCL) was found keeping 230 mg LSD stamps (20 Nos.) in the pocket of his pants. On interrogation, it was revealed that the applicant and the accused No.2 hatched a criminal conspiracy and accordingly the applicant entrusted the contraband to the accused No.2. Thereafter it was entrusted to the CCL by the accused No.2 with intention to trap one Mr.Sangeeth at Thiruvananthapuram in contravention of the NDPS Act and Rules and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri. V. Vinay, 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 contraband was seized from the applicant and he was arrayed as an accused solely based on the confession statement of the accused No.1 which is inadmissible. Apart from the said contention, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the applicant and his relative in accordance with law and that the applicant was not produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest. The learned counsel sought bail on those grounds as well. 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. The learned Prosecutor further submitted that there is no infraction of Article 22(1) or 22(2) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the grounds of arrest were duly communicated to the applicant and his relative and the applicant was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate well within 24 hours of his arrest.

6. The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on 30.11.2025. 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 the contraband was not seized from the possession of the applicant. However, the investigation revealed the active involvement of the applicant in the crime. After the arrest of the accused No.1, on interrogation he revealed that the contraband was supplied to him by one Mr.Raghil from Muttom at the instance of the applicant. The investigating agency also examined the CDRs of the mobile numbers used by the accused No.1, the applicant and the aforesaid Mr. Raghil and it was found that there were frequent voice calls among them and the applicant and Mr.Raghil were located in the same tower location. It was also revealed from the investigation that it was to falsely implicate one