Shabbier Ahammed vs State Of Kerala

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

The applicant is the accused No.4 in Crime No.721/2026 of Town North Police Station, Palakkad District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A), 21(a), 21(b), 22(b), 22(c) and 25 read with 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, NDPS Act).

The prosecution case, in short, is that on 17.08.2026 at about 07.00 hours, while the police officials were engaged in a vehicle checking drive at Olavakkode Junction, Palakkad, the Toyota Innova car beating Registration No. TN 38 BF 6274 was intercepted, in which four persons, including the applicant who was the driver and one lady, were travelling. On search of the co-accused and their baggage, MethyleneDioxy Methamphetamine (MDMA) weighing in aggregate 742.58 grams, Ganja weighing 15.020 grams, LSD stamps (0.5 grams/2 numbers), MDMA tablets weighing 4.230 grams, Cocaine weighing 2.440 grams and Brown Sugar weighing 2.480 grams, said to have been concealed in the bags, sacks and on the persons of accused Nos. 1 to 3 were recovered. It is further alleged that the applicant, as driver of the said vehicle, provided conveyance facility to the co-accused and thereby aided and abetted the transportation of the contraband from the State of Tamil Nadu into the State of Kerala for the purpose of sale in contravention of the NDPS Act and thereby committed the offences.

I have heard Sri. Rohit Baben, 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 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.

The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on 17.08.2026. 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.

The accused Nos. 1 to 3 were travelling in the car driven by the applicant. The contraband was seized from the possession of the accused Nos. 1 to 3. That apart, the picture of the contraband was found in the mobile phone seized from the applicant.

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.