AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gopinath P., J
The petitioner is the 2nd accused in NDPS Crime No.32/2021 of Parappanangadi Excise Range Office, Malappuram District. On 16-08-2021 the
1st accused was found in possession of 3.38 grams of MDMA while transporting the same in an autorickshaw bearing Registration No.KL-11/BK
7498 and based on the information given by the 1st accused a further quantity of 22.85 grams of MDMA was seized from the flat of the 2nd accused.
The learned counsel for the petitioner vehementally submits that the alleged seizure from the possession of the petitioner/2nd accused is illegal and
in violation of the procedure prescribed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It is submitted that it is settled law that the
NDPS Act being a draconian law the violation of the mandatory procedure will invalidate the prosecution. It is submitted that the petitioner is a
woman aged 38 years and her continued detention is not necessary in the facts and circumstances in the case. It is also submitted that the petitioner
has been in custody from 16-08-2021.
The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions would submit that a commercial quantity of MDMA was seized from the possession of the petitioner
from an apartment being used and occupied by her. It is submitted that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been a
violation of procedure in the matter of seizure is completely incorrect and that the correct procedure was followed in the matter. It is submitted that
MDMA is a synthetic drug and the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandate that bail can be granted only if the court comes to a conclusion
that prima facie, no case established against the petitioner.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I do not think
that this is case where I can make a finding even prima facie that the petitioner may be innocent in the matter. Therefore, in terms of the mandate of
Section 37, this bail application can only be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.