1. Bail application under Section 483, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, regarding alleged conspiracy and possession of a commercial quantity of narcotic drugs under the NDPS Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 74835
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Kauser Edappagath, J
Amal Pradeep K – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 5323 OF 2026
Important Points
In NDPS cases involving commercial quantities, bail under Section 37 is restricted; the court must find reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to re-offend, with financial and telephonic links serving as indicators of complicity in conspiracy.
Subject
Criminal - Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Bail - Commercial Quantity - Grant of bail under Section 37 is circumscribed, requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty of the offence and unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. (Para 6)
(B) Criminal Conspiracy - Evidence - Financial transactions and frequent telephonic communication between the accused and the primary possessor of narcotic drugs are relevant materials to consider the complicity of the accused under Section 29 of the Act. (Para 7)
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the commercial quantity of drugs recovered and prima facie evidence of his involvement in a trafficking syndicate.
(B) Criminal Conspiracy - Evidence - Financial transactions and frequent telephonic communication between the accused and the primary possessor of narcotic drugs are relevant materials to consider the complicity of the accused under Section 29 of the Act. (Para 7)
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the commercial quantity of drugs recovered and prima facie evidence of his involvement in a trafficking syndicate.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sreejith S. Nair, Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar, Satheesh Mohanan, Mahima, K. Pradiu
For the Respondents: Thomas Sabu Vadakekut
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sreejith S. Nair, Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar, Satheesh Mohanan, Mahima, K. Pradiu
For the Respondents: Thomas Sabu Vadakekut
Table of Contents
2. Applicant contends innocence and lack of connection to the crime, while the prosecution asserts involvement in a drug syndicate based on criminal acts, opposing bail. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. The court assessed the seriousness of the accusation, the commercial quantity of the contraband, and evidence of substantial financial transactions and communication between co-accused. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. Bail for offences involving commercial quantities under the NDPS Act is restricted by Section 37 provisions, requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty. (Para 6 , 8 )
5. What threshold must be met to grant bail for offences involving a commercial quantity of drugs under the NDPS Act?
Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the court can only grant bail if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (Para 6 )
6. Are financial transactions and call logs between co-accused sufficient to establish prima facie evidence for conspiracy under the NDPS Act?
Though the sufficiency of these materials for Section 29 of the NDPS Act is a matter for trial, frequent financial transactions and numerous phone calls can demonstrate prima facie evidence of a premeditated criminal act, justifying the denial of bail. (Para 7 , 8 )
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.11.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
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.3 in Crime No.27/2026 of Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode District. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 22(c) r/w 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant is part of a drug trafficking syndicate. The applicant conspired together for transportation and sale of a huge quantity of narcotic drugs and in pursuance of the said conspiracy at about 8.44 hours on 08.01.2026, the accused No.1 was found in conscious possession of 194.00 grams of MDMA at the Ring Road near Cochin Bakery, Kovoor and thereby committed the above offences.
4. I have heard Sri.Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and Sri.Thomas Sabu Vadakekut, the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The Senior 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 19.05.2026. 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. The recovery was effected on 08.01.2026. The final report would show that during the period from 23.07.2025 to 06.01.2026, there were several financial transactions between the applicant and the accused No.1, amounting to Rs.2,92,362/-. Similarly, during the said period, there were 1,260 phone calls between them. Of course, the question of whether these materials are sufficient to attract Section 29 of the NDPS Act is a matter to be decided at the time of trial.
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.
