IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN TH FRIDAY, THE 25 DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 5TH VAISAKHA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 5439 OF 2025 CRIME NO.56/2025 OF KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

ABHINAV P.N AGED 24 YEARS S/O. KAMALAKARAN, SHIVAGANGA HOUSE, UMMALATHUR, P.O.

VELLIPARAMBA, KOZHIKKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673008 BY ADVS.

S.K.KRISHNAKUMAR JERALD V.F.

V.M.MARY HARSHA RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT:

P.P. SRI. M.P. PRASANTH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R This application seeking regular bail has been filed by the 2^nd accused in Crime No.56/2025 of Kunnamangalam Police Station, registered alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act').

2. The prosecution allegation is that on 21.01.2025, at 12.15 p.m, the petitioner, along with the 1^st accused were found possessing 221.89 grams of MDMA inside an almirah in room No.208 of Hotel VR Residency, Kanathur, Kunnamangalam, for the purpose of sale in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act, and thereby committed the aforementioned offences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was implicated in this case as an accused on the basis of some surmises and conjectures. According to the counsel, no contraband was recovered from the exclusive possession of the petitioner, and the petitioner was actually arrested in this case from his house. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was booked in this case solely because of the reason that he happened to be a friend of the 1^st accused.

4. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that it was from the possession of the petitioner, the contraband was recovered. According to the counsel, as the quantity of contraband involved in this case is commercial quantity, the rigour contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is squarely applicable in this case in the matter of granting bail. Anyhow, the learned Public Prosecutor, referring to the chemical analysis report received after examination, fairly conceded that the contraband seized in this case is not MDMA, but Methamphetamine.

5. The allegation that the petitioner, along with the

1^st accused dared to possess huge quantity of Methamphetamine for the purpose of sale regardless of the prohibition contained under the NDPS Act cannot be viewed lightly. A perusal of the records reveals that the accusation against the petitioner as well as the 1^st accused is prima facie well-found. The petitioner was caught red-handed with the contraband on 21.01.2025, and since then he has been in custody. The investigation in this case is in the threshold. An in-depth investigation is highly necessary in this case to unearth the entire details involved in this case.

6. From the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor it is gatherable that the source of the contraband is yet to be traced out. Of course, a meticulous investigation is highly necessary in this case to trace out the source of the contraband as well.

7. Moreover, this is a case in which the commercial quantity of contraband is recovered. Therefore, the rigour contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act in granting bail is squarely applicable in this case. There is nothing to satisfy this Court that there exists any reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. As the petitioner failed to satisfy the above-said twin conditions mentioned in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, he is not entitled to be released on bail. Notably, this is a case in which a huge quantity of Methamphetamine has been recovered. Therefore, showing unnecessary leniency in