SUHAIL ALI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for regular bail filed by the sole accused in Crime No. 15/2021 of Palakkad Excise Range, which was registered on 20.03.2021, after seizing 115 grams of methamphetamine, a synthetic psychotropic drug coming in the category of MDMA from the bag carried by the petitioner. He was arrested along with the contraband on 20.03.2021 and since then is continuing in judicial custody.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is totally innocent in the case, he has been falsely implicated, that Section 50 of the NDPS Act has not been complied at all. It is true that the contraband was allegedly seized from the bag carried by him. Thereafter, his body was also searched, but that was done without complying the provisions of the NDPS Act, so that, the search and seizure are bad. According to the learned counsel, perusal of the mahazar alone is sufficient to think that it is an unbelievable case. Going by the mahazar, when the Excise party had searched the bus travelled by the petitioner, he alone had refused the search of the bag, he had allegedly held his bag close to his chest and did not permit the Excise party to open the same. These are unbelievable versions. According to him, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, that he is only 25 years old and that he may be released on bail. To support the contention, the learned counsel also relied on the decisions in State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand and Another [2014 CrLJ 1756] and also Muhammed Ameen and Another v. The Narcotic Control Bureau, Cochin [2020 (1) KHC 645].

(3.) The learned Senior Public Prosecutor has strongly opposed the application. According to him, it was a chance recovery, so that the question of complying Section 42 of the NDPS Act did not arise. The mahazar shows that Section 50 of the NDPS Act was complied with. Whether the right of the petitioner to be searched was communicated etc., can be decided only at the time of trial. Anyhow, there is substantial compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. According to the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, full compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS is not necessary, for the reason that it was a chance recovery.