ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., j.

1. This is an application filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code for regular bail.

2. The petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.756 of 2022 of Mattanchery Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

3. The prosecution case is that, on 29.09.2022 at about 23.40 hours, the 1st accused was found in possession of 493 grams of MDMA near Chullikkal Pump Junction, Thoppumpady. The 1st accused was arrested immediately. During the course of the investigation, it was revealed that certain amounts were transferred by the 1st accused to the account of the petitioner, and thereafter, the same was withdrawn by his brother. Therefore, the petitioner was implicated as the 3rd accused and his brother was implicated as 4th accused, as according to the police, the said amounts were transferred towards the consideration of the contraband article. In connection with the investigation of the said case, the petitioner was arrested on 09.10.2022. Since then, he has been under judicial detention. This application for regular bail is submitted in such circumstances.

4. Heard Sri.P.K.Varghese, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.C.K.Suresh, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of all the allegations. According to him, he has no connection with the transactions referred to by the prosecution. The specific case of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the account maintained by the petitioner was operated by the 1st accused, who is none other than his brother. Apart from the same, he has no connection with the transaction.

6. On the other hand, the specific case of the prosecution is that, the amounts for the purchase of the contraband articles were being transferred to the 4th accused, the brother of the petitioner, through the account of the petitioner. Therefore, dismissal of the application was sought.

7. I have carefully gone through the records. It is true that, there are ample materials to show that certain amounts were transferred through the account of the petitioner by the 1st accused. But, even going by the prosecution case, said amounts were withdrawn by the 4th accused. In this regard, the case of the petitioner is that his account was being managed by the 4th accused. When the materials placed before this Court and the nature of the prosecution case to the effect that 4th accused got the amounts transferred through the account of the petitioner, are considered, I am of the view that, the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be simply brushed aside. There is a possibility that he was not consciously involved in the transactions referred above. Anyhow, it is a matter to be considered during the trial. Thus, from the materials placed on record, I am of the view that, the aforesaid aspects are sufficient for recording the satisfaction of the twin conditions stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. This is mainly because, the police has no case that the petitioner was involved in any other cases of similar nature. In such circumstances, taking into account the period of detention the petitioner undergone and the the other aspects referred to above, I do not find the necessity of further incarceration of the petitioner.

8. In the result, this bail application is allowed subject to the following conditions:

i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m on every Wednesday until the filing of final report.

iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

v) The petitioner shall not commit any offence of like nature while on bail.

vi) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

vii) The petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the jurisdictional court.

viii) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Jurisdictional court and, in case, he does not have a passport, an affidavit to that effect shall be filed.

9. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.