MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.

1. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail.

2. The petitioners is the fifth accused in Crime No.686/2022 of Sasthamcotta Police Station, Kollam, for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii) C and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

3. The prosecution case is that, on 08/05/2022 at around 10.55 p.m., at Bharanikkavu Junction, acting on a tip-off, when the Sub Inspector of Police, Sasthamcotta Police Station and his party intercepted and inspected an Innova Car bearing Reg.No.KL 03/AB 5511, in which accused were travelling, they were found in possession of 46.780 kilograms of Ganja. As per the prosecution case, A1 to A3 purchased the ganja for A5 and handed it over to A1 and A2. According to the prosecution, A4 hired the Innova Car bearing Reg.No.KL/AB 5511 from Adoor, and he drove the car, reached Bangalore and entrusted the car to the other accused for the purpose of transporting Ganja, and thereby committed the above offence.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would say that the petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated in the crime with ulterior motives. At any rate, he points out that the petitioner is in custody from 01/05/2023, and continued custody of the petitioner is unnecessary. He argues that a charge sheet was filed against A1 and A2, and when the case was scheduled for trial against them, the prosecution intimated to the court that they had apprehended A3 and, therefore, proposed to conduct a further investigation. Accordingly, the trial against A1 and A2 was stopped. Thereafter, the investigating officer recorded the arrest of the petitioner, who was undergoing custody in another case registered by the Info-park Police Station, where the petitioner was taken into custody on the allegation of kidnapping A3 for ransom. The allegation against A5 is that A3 had purchased the contraband article for A5. Learned counsel argues that at no point before apprehending A3 was the role of A5 indicated by anyone, and it was only after A3 was apprehended that the petitioner was implicated.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposing the bail application had filed the report stating that the WhatsApp messages of A4 and the voice messages clearly showed the link between the petitioner and the other accused. Money was transferred to the wife of the first accused for purchasing contraband. The confession of the other accused also pointed out the culpability of the petitioner. It is also submitted that there are several antecedents against the petitioner, including under Section 302 of IPC. On these grounds prosecutor urged for dismissing the bail application.

6. On consideration of the rival submissions, few facts emerge. The third accused, who was arrested on 27.01.2023, revealed the name of the 4th accused and his role. The 4th accused was arrested on 13/02/2023, and he confessed his role and also revealed that the contraband caught by A1 was meant for a local Ganja dealer, Pratheesh, the petitioner herein. Corroborating this information, the examination of FSL records of A1 and A2 was obtained, which showed the WhatsApp voice message sent to A3 by A4, which showed that the Ganja was meant for Pratheesh. Crime No.121/2023 was registered against the petitioner for having kidnapped and manhandled A3, in this case out of the vengeance that he betrayed others, which resulted in the detection of Ganja from A1 and A2, which was meant for the petitioner. The transfer of Rs.22,000/- in favour by A5 also prima facie shows the involvement of the petitioner. The petitioner is also involved in 14 crimes under Section 302 IPC. He has already been convicted in two cases, and four cases are pending consideration. In the other two cases, he was acquitted under Section 332 Cr.P.C. The apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioner will intimidate and influence the witnesses and will also indulge in similar offences cannot be brushed aside in the circumstances mentioned above. That apart, this court, in the order in OP(Crl)No.489/2023 dated 10/8/2023, has directed the joint trial of SC No.2001/2022 and SC No.996/2023 pending before the Special Judge (Additional Sessions-V), Kollam, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Under these circumstances and considering the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. As a result, the bail application is dismissed.

8. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail.

9. The petitioners is the fifth accused in Crime No.686/2022 of Sasthamcotta Police Station, Kollam, for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii) C and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

10. The prosecution case is that, on 08/05/2022 at around 10.55 p.m., at Bharanikkavu Junction, acting on a tip-off, when the Sub Inspector of Police, Sasthamcotta Police Station and his party intercepted and inspected an Innova Car bearing Reg.No.KL 03/AB 5511, in which accused were travelling, they were found in possession of 46.780 kilograms of Ganja. As per the prosecution case, A1 to A3 purchased the ganja for A5 and handed over it to A1 and A2. According to the prosecution, A4 hired the Innova Car bearing Reg.No.KL/AB 5511 from Adoor and he drove the car and reached at Bangalore and entrusted the car to the other accused for the purpose of transporting Ganja, and thereby committed the above offence.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would say that the petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated in the crime with ulterior motives. At any rate, he points out that the petitioner is in custody from 01/05/2023, and continued custody of the petitioner is unnecessary. He argues that charge sheet was filed against A1 and A2 and when the case was scheduled for trial against then, prosecution intimated the court that they had apprehended A3 and therefore proposed to conduct a further investigation. Accordingly, the trial against A1 and A2 was stopped. Thereafter, the investigating officer who recorded the arrest of the petitioner who was undergoing custody in another case registered by the Info-park Police Station where the petitioner was taken into custody on the allegation of kidnapping A3 for ransom. The allegation against A5 is that A3 had purchased the contraband article for A5. Learned counsel argues that at no point before apprehending A3 was the role of A5 indicated by any one and it was only after A3 was apprehended that petitioner was implicated.

12. Learned Public Prosecutor opposing the bail application had filed the report stating that the whatsapp messages of A4 and the voice messages clearly showed the link of the petitioner. Money was transferred to the wife of the first accused for purchasing contraband. The confession of the other accused also pointed out the culpability of the petitioner. It is also submitted that there are several antecedents against the petitioner including under Section 302 of IPC. On these grounds prosecutor urged for dismissing the bail application.

13. On a consideration of the rival submissions, few facts emerge. The third accused who was arrested on 27.01.2023 revealed the name of the 4th accused and his role. The 4th accused was arrested on 13/02/2023 and he confessed his role and also revealed that the contraband caught by A1 was meant for a local Ganja dealer, Pratheesh, the petitioner herein. Corroborate this information the examination of FSL records of A1 and A2 was obtained which showed the whatsapp voice message sent to the A3 by A4 which showed that the Ganja was meant for Pratheesh. Crime No.121/2023 was registered against the petitioner for having kidnapped and manhandled A3 in this case out of the vengenes that he betrayed others, which resulted detection of Ganja from A1 and A2, which was meant for the petitioner. The transfer of Rs.22,000/- in favour by A5 also prima facie shows the involvement of the petitioner. The petitioner is also involved in 14 crimes including under Section 302 IPC. In two cases he has already been convicted and four cases are pending consideration. In other two cases he was acquitted under Section 332 Cr.P.C. The apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioner will intimidate and influence the witnesses and will also indulge in similar offences cannot be brushed aside , in the circumstances mentioned above. That apart, this court in the order in OP(Crl)No.489/2023 dated 10/8/2023 has directed the trial of SC No.2001/2022 and SC No.996/2023 pending before the Special Judge (Additional Sessions-V), Kollam, which clubbed both the cases and tried them jointly within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Under these circumstances, considering the fact that commercial quantity is involved, the rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act also applies. Under these circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

14. Resultantly, the bail application is dismissed.