AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These applications are filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS), seeking regular bail.
BA No.5070/2026 is filed by the accused No.2 and BA No.5201/2026 is filed by the accused No.1 in Crime No.6/2026 of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Cochin Zonal Unit, Ernakulam. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 21(c), 23(c), 28 and 29(1) r/w 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, NDPS Act).
The prosecution case, in short, is that based on specific intelligence, the accused persons arriving from Bangkok at Cochin International Airport by Thai Lion Air flight SL 210 were intercepted by the Revenue Intelligence authorities on 25/5/2026. Upon examination of their baggage, 3502 grams of Methaqualone was recovered from the accused No.1 Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had conscious knowledge of narcotic substances in the baggage and thus committed the offences.
I have heard Sri.K.R.Prathish, the learned counsel for the applicant in BA No.5070/2026, Sri.Saurav B, the learned counsel for the applicant in BA No.5201/2026 and Sri.N.Jagath, the learned Standing Counsel for the DRI. Perused the case diary.
The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicants with the alleged crime; hence, they are entitled to bail. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for DRI submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicants, and they are not entitled to bail at this stage.
The applicants were remanded to judicial custody on 25/5/2026. A perusal of the case diary would reveal that the accusation against the applicants is very serious, and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on their 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.
The case records would show that the contraband was seized from the direct possession of the accused No.1 when he landed at Cochin International Airport along with the accused No.2 The investigation conducted so far revealed that the accused Nos.1 and 2 travelled together from Cochin to Bangkok to procure the contraband, stayed together at Bangkok and returned together in the same flight. The ticket for the accused No.1 was purchased by the accused No.2.
The accused No.1 has also taken a contention that the grounds of arrest were not communicated properly to the accused No.1 and his relative in terms of Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The arrest of the accused No. 1 was at 12.20 pm on 25/5/2026. The notice issued to him under Section 47 of the BNSS would show that the grounds of arrest were communicated in writing to him at 2.50 p.m. He was produced before the Magistrate at 5.00 p.m. Thus, the grounds of arrest were communicated prior to two hours before his production before the Magistrate. The records would further show that the communication regarding the grounds for arrest was given to the relative of the accused No.1 through WhatsApp. The accused No.1 has also taken a contention that he or his relative to whom the grounds of arrest were communicated did not know English and the communication was in English. However, the statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was given by the applicant in English language. In the said statement, he has clearly admitted that he is literate in English. To the WhatsApp message sent to the relative of the accused No.1, he has acknowledged the receipt of the same by giving a reply “ok”. For these reasons, I am of the view that there is due compliance of Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
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 applicants are not guilty of the offences charged. The applicants have not been able to point out the existence of any such facts or circumstances as are sufficient to justify recording a finding that they are not guilty of the offences charged.
Considering the nature of the crime, the gravity of the offence, the complicity of the applicants in it, and the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I am of the view that the applicants cannot be released on bail at this stage. The bail applications, accordingly, are dismissed.