Individual seizures under separate mahazars cannot be aggregated to constitute a commercial quantity.

The petitioner (Accused No. 4) was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on December 23, 2024, for alleged offenses under Sections 8(c), 22(c), and 29(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

The prosecution alleged that a police team intercepted a vehicle containing four individuals and recovered varying quantities of Methamphetamine from each person: 61.14 grams from A1, 3.38 grams from A2, 4.13 grams from A3, and 3.22 grams from the petitioner (A4).

While the total recovery (71.87 grams) constituted a "commercial quantity," the recovery from the petitioner alone was an "intermediate quantity".

The petitioner contended that the search and seizure were conducted via separate mahazars and that the search memo initially cited "consumption," whereas the arrest memo later added "sale".

Investigation was completed, and the charge sheet was filed as C.C.No.338 of 2025.

1. Whether the individual recovery of an intermediate quantity from an accused, seized under a separate mahazar, can be aggregated with other recoveries to constitute a "joint possession" of a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.

2. Whether the inconsistencies between the search memo and the arrest memo, regarding the purpose of possession (consumption vs. sale), warrant the exercise of discretionary power to grant bail.

Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which imposes stringent conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities.

Sections 8(c), 22(c), and 29(1) of the NDPS Act regarding the possession and sale of contraband.

The precedent established in Badauru Shuhail v. State (Crl.OP .Nos.4755 of 2025), which held that if seizures from different accused are recorded under separate mahazars, the quantities must be counted individually rather than jointly to determine if they reach the commercial threshold.

Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 483 of the BNSS regarding bail jurisdiction.

The Court examined the search and seizure process, noting that the recovery from the petitioner (3.22 grams) occurred via a separate seizure mahazar and was timed significantly later than the recoveries from the other accused.

Applying the ratio from Badauru Shuhail, the Court reasoned that the individual seizure of an intermediate quantity cannot be automatically construed as joint possession of a commercial quantity solely because the accused were traveling together.

The Court highlighted a critical discrepancy in the prosecution's records: the search memo indicated the petitioner was intercepted for "consuming" the substance, while the arrest memo was later modified to include "sale".

Given that the petitioner had no prior criminal record and the investigation was already complete, the Court found that the rigors of Section 37 were not strictly applicable to the petitioner’s intermediate quantity.

The petitioner was ordered to be released on a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including daily appearance before the Trial Court for 60 days, surrender of his passport, and a prohibition against tampering with evidence.

The Court further directed that any breach of conditions would allow the Trial Court to pass appropriate orders as per the principles in P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala.