Kerala High Court
Jobi Solomon vs State Of Kerala on 25 July, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
B.A. No.7342/25 1
2025:KER:55379
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 7342 OF 2025
CRIME NO.11/2024 OF NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, KOCHI, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.04.2025 IN Bail Appl. NO.5205 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
JOBI SOLOMON
AGED 31 YEARS, S/O SOLOMON,
PANAKKAL HOUSE,
KODUNGAMPOYIL, CHEVAYOOR,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673017
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR
SHRI.BENNY ANTONY PAREL
SMT.PRAMITHA AUGUSTINE
SMT.AFSANA KHAN
SHRI.SREERAJ S. RAJARAM
SMT.SNEHA J.
SHRI.ADARSH PADMANABHAN
SHRI.AMAL DILEEP
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE INSPECTOR
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, COCHIN ZONAL UNIT,
KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD,
KOCHI, PIN - 682037
B.A. No.7342/25 2
2025:KER:55379
BY ADVS.
SHRI.R.VINU RAJ, SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SHRI.K.K.SUBEESH
SHRI.K.A.NOUSHAD, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.07.2025, THE COURT ON 25.07.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.7342/25 3
2025:KER:55379
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------
B.A. No. 7342 of 2025
---------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025
ORDER
This is an application seeking regular bail filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.11 of 2024 of Narcotics Control Bureau, Cochin Zonal Unit, which was registered alleging offences punishable under sections 8(c), 22(c), 23(c), 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act').
3. According to the prosecution, on 25.11.2024, pursuant to receiving information that a suspicious parcel containing narcotic substances had arrived from Portugal, at the Kochi International Mail Centre, addressed to the accused, the standard procedure for controlled delivery of narcotic drugs was initiated and after obtaining permission, a dummy parcel was despatched to the same address. In the meantime, upon inspection and opening of the original parcel, it was found to contain 0.13 grams of LSD. Petitioner accepted the dummy parcel on 02-12-2024, and he was arrested on B.A. No.7342/25 4 2025:KER:55379 03.12.2024 alleging possession of contraband and thereby committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was remanded on 04.12.2024 and he has been in custody since then.
4. Sri. Saiby Jose Kidangoor, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution allegations are false and the petitioner is totally innocent. It was further submitted that the petitioner cannot be connected with the contraband and hence he ought to be released on bail. According to the learned counsel, except for a voluntary statement of the accused, nothing more has been retrieved by the investigating agency to connect the petitioner with the crime. The learned counsel further submitted that, considering the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner from 04.12.2024, he ought to be released on bail.
5. Sri. R. Vinu Raj, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the petitioner was found to be in possession of commercial quantity of LSD and therefore his continued detention is necessary. It was also stated that, pursuant to the summons issued to the petitioner, he gave a voluntary statement on 03.12.2024 that he is a drug addict and the parcel containing the drug arrived from his friend in Portugal. It was also submitted that the investigation conducted so far has revealed that the petitioner had received the parcel sent by his friend from Portugal and that he received the parcel and acknowledged the same, B.A. No.7342/25 5 2025:KER:55379 knowing that it contained drugs. The investigation conducted so far has also revealed that the drug was addressed to the petitioner and it contained his mobile number as well. It was also submitted that the procedure prescribed by law to carry out a controlled delivery was followed and hence the petitioner has to be deemed to be in possession of the contraband.
6. I have considered the rival contentions.
7. By Crl.M.Appl. No.1 of 2025, the mistake in column 41 of the objection filed by the respondents has been corrected by striking off the same.
8. A suspicious parcel addressed to the petitioner and containing his mobile number, was intercepted at the Kochi International Mail Centre. The said parcel was seized on 25.11.2024 and the Director General of Narcotics Control Bureau granted authorization to undertake controlled delivery of the seized parcel to apprehend the consignee of the seized drugs as named in the parcel. Thereafter, a dummy parcel was created in the presence of independent witnesses and was despatched through post to the end destination mentioned in the parcel. In the meantime, the parcel was opened in the presence of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam and it was sealed with wax of the Court and thereafter the sample was forwarded for analysis to the Regional Chemical Examiner's Laboratory, Ernakulam. The dummy parcel was prepared in compliance with the procedure for service of B.A. No.7342/25 6 2025:KER:55379 dummy parcel and with the approval of the Sub Postmaster of Chevayoor Post, Calicut. After the dummy parcel was served to the petitioner, the postman informed the Investigating Officer, who thereafter reached the house and on search, the dummy parcel was recovered with the receiver's address as that of the petitioner. In the statement given to the NCB Officials, petitioner informed that the parcel had been sent by his friend by name Abhijith Bhaskar from Portugal. The statement also revealed that the petitioner's laptop contained details relating to parcels of Marijuana received by him earlier with photographs of the said contraband. After complying with the requirements of communicating the grounds for arrest, the petitioner was taken into custody and on completing investigation, the final report has already been filed.
9. Though it was contended that there are no materials to connect the petitioner with the crime, it is noticed that this is an instance where the contraband was intercepted at the Kochi International Mail Centre and after complying with the legal requirements, a dummy parcel was created and sent to the same address. The dummy parcel was received by the petitioner who was the addressee on the original parcel of contraband. Seizure of the dummy parcel is an action pursuant to section 50A of the NDPS Act. The laptop seized and the WhatsApp chats retrieved allegedly contained materials to connect the petitioner's prior involvement with narcotic drugs. The accused had confessed to the crime. He had also given a statement that he knows B.A. No.7342/25 7 2025:KER:55379 Sri. Abhijit Bhaskar who sent the article. However, those statements are inadmissible in evidence. Photographs of the petitioner's prior involvement with drugs were retrieved from the laptop seized from him. The seizure of a dummy parcel containing a substitute for the narcotic drug, coupled with the recovery of the photographs from the laptop about earlier instances of receipt of narcotic drugs by the petitioner and the WhatsApp chats clearly indicate petitioner's involvement with narcotic drugs. Hence it cannot be held that the petitioner will not involve in an offence under the NDPS Act, if released on bail.
10. The word 'controlled delivery' is defined in section 2(viib) as "the technique of allowing illicit or suspect consignments of Narcotic Drugs, Psychotropic Substances, controlled substances or substances substituted for them to pass out of, or through or into the territory of India with the knowledge and under the supervision of an officer empowered in this behalf or duly authorised under section 50A with a view to identifying the persons involved in the commission of an offence under this Act". Once a controlled delivery has been effected, it has to be treated as the person having been found in possession of the contraband itself. Of course, if there is nothing to indicate any connection for the petitioner with drugs, it is a different issue. In the instant case, the photogrpahs retrieved and the WhatsApp chat indicate petitioner's involvement with drugs. Viewed in the above perspective, prima B.A. No.7342/25 8 2025:KER:55379 facie, it cannot be held that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged.
11. Controlled delivery is an investigative tool undertaken by the investigating officer as authorised under section 50A of the NDPS Act with a view to identifying the persons involved in the commission of the offence under the NDPS Act.
12. Since the quantity of contraband deemed to have been received by the petitioner falls in the category of commercial quantity, the rigour under section 37 of the NDPS Act will apply. In the decision in Narcotics Control Bureau V. Mohit Aggarwal [(2022) 18 SCC 374], rendered by a Bench of three Judges, it was observed that the focus must be on the availability of reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence alleged against him and also that he is unlikely to commit an offence under the Act. The Court held that the length of the period of custody is not a consideration that can be treated as a persuasive ground to grant bail under section 37 of the NDPS Act. Thus the long period of custody has no bearing in the matter of bail in a case involving commercial quantities of drugs under the NDPS Act.
13. Considering the circumstances, it cannot be held that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged, at least at this juncture. Further, since the laptop seized from the custody of the petitioner and the WhatsApp chats indicates prior transactions of contraband, it cannot be assumed that the B.A. No.7342/25 9 2025:KER:55379 petitioner will not indulge in such an offence, if released on bail. Therefore both the limbs of Section 37 of the NDPS Act having been satisfied, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner could be released on bail.
Accordingly this bail application is dismissed.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE vps B.A. No.7342/25 10 2025:KER:55379 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 7342/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03.12.2024 INTIMATING THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE HOUSE SEARCH MAHAZAR DATED 02.12.2024, PREPARED BY 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS ISSUED BY THE STAR CARE HOSPITAL KOZHIKODE DATED 25.10.2024 Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 31.01.2025 IN CRL.M.C.NO.100 OF 2025 Annexure A5 ORDER DATED 13-03-2025 IN BAIL APPL.3347/2025 ON HIGH COURT Annexure A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.04.2025 IN B.A. 5205 OF 2025 OF THIS HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA