Vipin @ Kannan vs State Of Kerala

Mohammed Nias C.P, J.

This is a the second application for regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 692/2023 of Mannanchery Police Station, Alappuzha, which was registered for the offences punishable under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

The allegation against the petitioner is that the accused was found in possession of 11.700 gms of MDMA for the purpose of sale, in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act. Hence, the accused is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offence. The petitioner was arrested on 04.08.2023 and since then, he has been under judicial detention.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier application was rejected on 17.10.2023 and on 13.11.2023, the complaint was filed. It is now found that the contraband seized is Methamphetamine, at the intermediate level. He also argues that going by Rule 14 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 the scientific examination report was to be made available within 15 days. He also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam [2017 (4) KHC 470] to say that since only the Methamphetamine at intermediate quantity is involved, the right to default bail occurs after 60 days and even on the date of first consideration of the bail he was entitled to default bail. It is also pointed out that in the very same crime, the second accused was granted default bail by the Sessions Court, Kollam by orders dated 9.11.2023.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application submitted that there is no change in circumstances and again pointed out that there are six antecedents against the petitioner including two under the NDPS Act itself apart from the instant crime.

Having considered the rival submissions it is to be seen that the above bail application was dismissed on the basis that commercial quantity is involved and that there are six antecedents reported against the petitioner including two under the NDPS Act. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the chemical analysis report shows that the quantity involved is Methamphetamine, at intermediate quantity, still, it cannot be disputed that there are two cases against the petitioner other than the instant one under the NDPS Act itself. Under such circumstances, I am not inclined to consider the request for bail. It is to be noted that the purpose of the Act itself is to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to narcotic drugs, and psychotropic substances which means to curb the menace of illicit trafficking and use of drugs.

The alternate contention raised by the learned counsel is that since only an intermediate quantity is involved as is seen after the filing of the chemical analysis report, even at the consideration of the earlier bail application the petitioner was entitled to default bail. It is to be noted that the petitioner could make this contention only after the receipt of the chemical analysis report which is nothing but a fortuitous circumstance. Because of the antecedents of the petitioner even if the intermediate quantity is involved, grant of bail is not justified. I find no change in circumstances or merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed.