For offenses involving commercial quantities under the NDPS Act, bail cannot be granted unless the court is satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty, considering the gravity of the offense and evidence of active complicity.

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.6 in Crime No.1059/2025 of Kondotty Police Station, Malappuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, NDPS Act).

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

11.09.2025 at 03.10 pm, the Inspector of Police, Kondotty Police Station had seized 50.61 grams of MDMA from the joint possession of the accused Nos.1 to 3 while they were occupying Room No.203 in Redbell Residency Lodge, Kondotty in contravention of the NDPS Act and thereby committed the aforementioned offences.

4. I have heard Sri.C.Y. Vinod Kumar, 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 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 15.09.2025. 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. Even though no contraband was seized from the possession of the applicant, the investigation clearly reveals the involvement of the applicant. It is seen that the applicant and the accused No.7 procured the contraband from Bangalore. The CCTV visuals of the SBI ATM at Bangalore Electronic City as well as the call records of the applicant with the remaining accused and also the financial transactions between them shows the involvement of the applicant in the crime.

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.