When a bail application involves commercial quantities of contraband under the NDPS Act, the court must strictly apply the provisions of Section 37, requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty, which cannot be satisfied if there is strong prima facie evidence of criminal conspiracy.

ORDER

This is the third application 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 and 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 and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri. K.Jaishankar, 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 learned counsel for the applicant submitted that now the final report has been filed and there is change of circumstances. However, in the final report also specific involvement of the applicant has been revealed. Therefore, the rigor under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would get attracted.

Considering the nature of the crime,