Mere knowledge of another person's possession of narcotic drugs does not constitute 'conscious possession' under the NDPS Act; without recovery of contraband or evidence of control, the rigours of Section 37 do not apply for bail purposes.

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.10.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail.

The applicant is the accused No.2 in Crime No.113/2026 of Excise Range Office, Ernakulam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A), 22(c), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’).

The prosecution case, in short, is that on 22.08.2026 at about 5.45 a.m., the Excise Officials, pursuant to the secret information received by them regarding the possession and sale of narcotic drugs by the accused No.1, reached Room No.202 of Makkiyil Residency, situated opposite St.Augustine’s High School, Kaloor, where the accused Nos.1 and 2 were found. Further, 49.19 grams of MDMA was recovered from the body search of the accused No.1. Thereafter, pursuant to the statement made by the accused No.1 at about 4.20 p.m. on 22.08.2026, the accused Nos.3 and 4 were intercepted while they were in possession of and transporting 232.21 grams of MDMA and 2.98 grams of hashish oil in a Mahindra Thar Jeep bearing registration No.KL-60U-2418 in front of the Ambiente Building Complex, opposite St.George Church, Chakkaraparambu. It is alleged that all the accused conspired together and abetted each other in the transportation and sale of narcotic drugs and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

I have heard Sri.P.Mohamed Sabah, the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt.Aneeda Beegum, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

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, she 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 she is not entitled to bail at this stage.

The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on 22.08.2026. The investigation is almost over. The applicant is a girl aged 19 years who does not have any criminal antecedents. She is the lover of the accused No.1. No contraband has been recovered from her possession. Even as per the secret information allegedly received by the Excise Officials, specific information was only against the accused No.1. Annexure 2 seizure mahazar would show that the Excise Officials could not obtain any material or evidence connecting the applicant with the alleged drug trafficking activities of the accused No.1. The seizure mahazar merely proceeds on the allegation that the applicant had knowledge that the accused No.1 was in possession of the contraband. Mere knowledge that another person is in possession of a narcotic drug cannot by itself constitute conscious possession or establish participation in the drug trafficking. When interrogated by the Excise Officials, the applicant stated that she went along with the accused No.1 on the date of the incident to consume MDMA. There are no incriminating circumstances demonstrating that the applicant had exercised control of conscious possession of the contraband seized from the possession of the accused No.1. With regard to the second seizure whereby 232.21 grams of MDMA and 2.98 grams of Hashish Oil were recovered from the accused Nos.3 and 4, there is no material connecting the applicant with the same. Considering all these aspects, I am of the view that the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be attributed to the applicant. The applicant has been in custody since 22.08.2026. For all these reasons, I do not find any reason to hold that the continued detention of the applicant is required for any purpose. Hence, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, the app