Kerala High Court
Midhun Govind vs Union Of India on 11 June, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
BAIL APPL. NO. 6385 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:41653
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 6385 OF 2025
CRIME NO.10/2024 OF NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, KOCHI, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.01.2025 IN Bail Appl. NO.9561
OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/ ACCUSED :
MIDHUN GOVIND,
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.GOVIND, PULIKKOTTU HOUSE,
NALLAMTHANNI. P.O. NILAMBUR. P.O.,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679330
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU
SHRI.RASSAL JANARDHANAN A.
RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT :
1 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682031
2 INSPECTOR,
NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU,
COCHIN ZONAL UNIT, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682037
BAIL APPL. NO. 6385 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:41653
BY ADV. SHRI.K.K.SUBEESH
SRI. R.VINU RAJ, SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 6385 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:41653
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
-----------------------------------
B.A. No. 6385 of 2025
------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of June, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’).
2. Petitioner is the first accused in O.R.No.10 of 2024 of the
Narcotic Control Bureau, Cochin Zonal Unit, which is now numbered as
S.C.No.430 of 2025 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-VIII,
Ernakulam, registered for the offences punishable under sections 22(c),
23(c), 22(b), 23(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985.
3. According to the prosecution, on 25.09.2024, the Inspector
of NCB received information regarding seizure of 10.04 grams of white
coloured powder substance presumed to be MDMA at the International
Post Office, Karikkamuri, Ernakulam. The seized articles were produced
before court. Thereafter another Inspector was deputed to continue the
follow up enquiry and investigation. As part of his attempt to apprehend
the consignee of the seized drugs the inspector prepared a dummy parcel
and dispatched the same to the end destination with the help of postal
officials. The said parcel reached Nallamthanni post office on 01.10.2024.
BAIL APPL. NO. 6385 OF 2025
4
2025:KER:41653
The follow up action resulted in the apprehension of the petitioner while
he reached the Nallamthanni post office for receiving the parcel
addressed to him. Thereafter, petitioner was arrest on 02.10.2024.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the
learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was arrested on 02.10.2024 and he has been in custody since
then.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
7. Though petitioner was initially arrayed as the sole accused,
subsequently another accused has also been identified. A suspect
parcel came from Netherlands in the name of ‘Miden Guvind’ with the
address as that of the petitioner. On opening the suspected parcel, it
was identified as containing narcotic drug and therefore in accordance
with Section 50A of the NDPS Act, a dummy parcel was created and
send to the same address. Petitioner collected the parcel and on
identifying the recipient of the dummy parcel as the person who
would have received the narcotic drug, the petitioner was arrested.
Subsequently, another 26.88 grams of Amphetamine was also
recovered from the petitioner’s possession while he was in custody.
8. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
BAIL APPL. NO. 6385 OF 2025
5
2025:KER:41653
contended that conscious possession of narcotic drug cannot be
attributed to the petitioner, I am of the view that considering the
definition of the word controlled delivery in Section 2(viib) r/w Section
50A of the NDPS Act, the procedure adopted by the respondents cannot
be found fault with. Further petitioner having collected the dummy
parcel can be prima facie said to be in conscious possession of the
same. In this context, contention of the respondents that the
investigation revealed that petitioner had repeatedly enquired with the
postman about the parcel from Netherlands also assumes significance.
9. As observed by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala and
Others v. Rajesh and Others [(2020) 12 SCC 122], the scheme of
section 37 requires that the power to grant bail under the NDPS Act is
subject to the limitation placed in the said provision over and apart
from the restrictions under the procedural law and the twin conditions
stipulated therein are required to be satisfied. Further, in the decision
in Narcotics Control Bureau V. Mohit Aggarwal [(2022) 18 SCC
374], it has been 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 and also that he is unlikely to commit an
offence under the Act. The Supreme Court went on to observe that the
length of the period of custody or that the charge sheet had been filed
or even that the trial has commenced are by themselves are not
BAIL APPL. NO. 6385 OF 2025
6
2025:KER:41653
considerations that can be treated as persuasive to grant bail under
section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Considering the nature of allegations against the petitioner, I
am of the view that the rigour under Section 37 of NDPS Act applies
and it cannot be held that petitioner is not guilty of the offences
alleged.
Accordingly, I find no merit in this bail application and it is
dismissed.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE
RKM
BAIL APPL. NO. 6385 OF 2025
7
2025:KER:41653
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 6385/2025
PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL. M.P.
NO. 1725/2025 DATED 02.05.2025 PASSED BY
THE HON’BLE ADDL. SESSIONS COURT-VIII,
ERNAKULAM
RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES
Annexure R1 Chemical Analysis Report
Annexure R2 Chemical Analysis Report