Muhammed Sumair A vs State Of Kerala & Anr.

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

The applicant is the accused in Crime No.30/2026 of Sulthan Bathery Excise Range Office, Wayanad District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22(c) and 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, NDPS Act).

The prosecution case, in short, is that on 26.02.2026 at about 9.30 a.m, the applicant was found to be in possession of, and transporting, 63.957 grams of Methamphetamine, in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act and the Rules made thereunder, when the bus by name Sri Sugam bearing registration No. TN/31/CK/0777, in which the applicant was travelling, was flagged down and searched by the Excise Officials at the road margin in front of the Honey Distribution Centre belonging to the Kerala Forest Department situated along the Kozhikode-Kollagal National Highway in Ponkuzhi Desom of Noolpuzha Village in Sulthan Bathery Taluk.

I have heard Sri.K.Mohammed Rafeeq, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.Thomas Sabu Vadakekut, the learned 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 learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that there is total non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The learned counsel also submitted that in the intimation given to the relative of the applicant regarding the grounds of arrest, the Section of the offence has not been mentioned. 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. As regards the contention based on violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, it was pointed out that as it was a case of chance recovery, the compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not required. Reliance was placed on the recent decision of this Court in Muhammed Azad A.K. v. State of Kerala [2026 KHC OnLine 575].

The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on 26.02.2026. 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.

A perusal of the case diary would reveal that the accusations against the applicant are very serious in nature, and it prima facie shows a premeditated act on his part. The contraband was seized from the applicant's direct possession. 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. Moreover, the applicant is involved in other NDPS Act offences.

The remand report would show that the recovery from the applicant was a chance recovery without any prior information. The applicant was travelling in a bus. While conducting a routine check in the bus, the detecting officer found the applicant perplexed. Thereafter, the detecting officer noticed something bulging in the pocket of the applicant. On questioning, the applicant handed over a green coloured plastic cover, which, on examination, was found to contain Methamphetamine. The detecting officer had no reason to believe that the applicant was carrying a narcotic drug. It was plainly a chance recovery. Recently, this Court in Muhammed Azad A.K. (supra) has held that in case of chance recovery - where the narcotic substances are stumbled upon unexpectedly during routine investigation or checks, rather than acting on prior specific information - the procedural safeguard under Section 50 does not apply. Since the recovery from the applicant was a chance recovery without any prior information, there is no necessity to comply with Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

A perusal of the case diary would further show that the grounds of arrest were duly communicated to the applicant as well as to the relative of the applicant. The Section of the offence involved is not specifically stated in the communication. However, all the other relevant details, including the quantity of contraband seized and the reason for arrest, are specifically mentioned. In cases under the NDPS Act, if the notices under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS contain specific grounds or reasons for arrest as well as the quantity of the contraband seized, the mere non-mentioning of the Section of the offence under which the accused is charged does not render the communication of grounds of arrest defective.

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.