AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jobin Sebastian, J
This petition seeking regular bail has been filed by the third accused in Crime No.922/2025 of Mannarkkad Police Station, registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 22(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) .
The prosecution allegation is that on 13.08.2025, accused nos. 1 to 4 were found possessing 12.64 gms of Methamphetamine, which they had purchased from the 5th accused, in a Maruti Swift car bearing registration No.KL 46 U 6611, for the purpose of sale in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act and thereby committed the aforementioned offences.
I heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides and perused the available records.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is absolutely false. According to him, no contraband was actually recovered from the possession of the petitioner, an he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of an alleged confession made by the co-accused in this case. The learned counsel urged that the investigation in this case is practically over, and hence, further judicial incarceration of the petitioner is unwarranted and will serve no purpose.
Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application by highlighting the serious nature of the offence alleged against the petitioner.
The allegation that the petitioner along with the other accused possessed Methamphetamine, regardless of the prohibition contained under the NDPS Act, cannot be viewed lightly. A perusal of the records reveals that the accusation against the petitioner is prima facie well-founded. I am not oblivious of the fact that the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in this case mainly on the strength of the confession statement made by the co-accused in this case. Although the confession made by a co-accused is inadmissible in evidence, the same has crucial importance for the purpose of investigation. Anyhow, the petitioner, who is arrayed as the third accused in this case, was arrested on 16.11.2025, and since then, he has been in custody. The investigation in this case appears to have progressed substantially and is now on the verge of completion. It is also pertinent to note that no criminal antecedents are pointed out against the petitioner. As the investigation has crossed its major and crucial part, further judicial incarceration of the petitioner would serve no purpose. Moreover, the quantity of Methamphetamine seized in this case will fall under intermediate quantity. Therefore, the rigour contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for the grant of bail is not applicable. Hence, having regard to the days of detention already undergone by the petitioner and the present stage of investigation, I am inclined to grant bail to him subject to the following conditions;
Petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. for a period of three months or until the final report is filed, whichever occurs first.
The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
Petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
If the petitioner violates any of the above conditions, the investigating officer is at liberty to file an appropriate application for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional court, and if such an application is filed, the jurisdictional court can pass appropriate orders irrespective of the fact that this order is passed by this Court.