B.A.No.4052 of 2025 1 2025:KER:27657 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4052 OF 2025 CRIME NO.841/2022 OF KARUNAGAPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN BAIL APPL. NO.5333 OF 2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.3: SANAL, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O PUSHPARAJAN 'DHAKSHALAYAM', MAINAGAPALLY VILLAGE KUNNATHUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690540 BY ADV C.S.SUMESH RESPONDENT(S)/STATE: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 BY ADV. SRI.C.S HRITHWICK, SR PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.4052 of 2025 2 2025:KER:27657 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------- B.A.No.4052 of 2025 ------------------------------- Dated this the 01st day of April, 2025 O R D E R This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.841/2022 of Karunagappally Police Station, Kollam. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 22(c) & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'). 3. It is alleged that, in order to purchase MDMA for the purpose of sale, the 1st accused made a payment of Rs.88000/- (Rupees Eighty Eight Thousand Only) through Google Pay to the 4th accused. Thereupon, the 1st accused reached Bangalore with the 2nd accused and they were given the MDMA contraband at Brookefield, Bangalore by the 5th accused as per the instruction of the 4th accused. It is alleged that the petitioner/3rd accused paid an amount of Rs.52,000/- (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand Only) to the 1st B.A.No.4052 of 2025 3 2025:KER:27657 accused to buy the MDMA contraband in the aforesaid transaction which is been seized in the instant crime. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the above said offences. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Different contentions are raised by the counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that it is an application for anticipatory bail in a commercial quantity case under the NDPS Act. Section 37 of the NDPS Act reads like this: “37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.— (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)— (a)every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b)no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless--(i)the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and(ii)where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. B.A.No.4052 of 2025 4 2025:KER:27657 (2)The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail.” In the light of the same, this Court is not in a position to conclude that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he will not commit any offence. Moreover, this is the second bail application and the earlier bail application was already dismissed. Therefore, there is no merit in this case. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE DM