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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
