ORDER : Petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.658 of 2021 of Koratty police station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii) C and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'the NDPS Act'). This application is filed seeking their release on bail. 2. The prosecution case in brief, is that on 24.07.2021, at about 5.15 a.m the Sub Inspector of police, Koratty police station received a reliable information that ganja is being transported in large scale in a lorry bearing No.KL-63-3428 as well in a car bearing No.KL-49-K-6022 through the NH road within his police station limits from north to south. Immediately after reporting the information received to his superior officer he along with his team proceeded to the NH road and started to observe the vehicles passing through the road. While so, at about 6.30 a.m, the above vehicles were found coming through the road. So the police team headed by the SI intercepted the vehicles near the Government Press, Koratty and on questioning the persons found inside the vehicles disclosed their names. After complying with the legal formalities they started checking of the vehicles and the accused were found together transporting 209.700 kg of ganja packed in sacks in the lorry bearing No.KL-63-3428 and in the car bearing No.KL-49 K-6022 for illegal sale. They were arrested and the contraband were seized after complying with the required formalities from both the vehicles and thus the FIR was registered before the Koratty Police Station under the aforementioned sections. 3. The petitioners are in custody since 24.7.2021. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that they are totally innocent of the allegations leveled against them and even if the prosecution story is believable, only 28.7 kg of ganja was found in the car bearing No.KL-49-K/6022 in which they were travelling along with another person. So they were not found in possession of huge quantity of ganja as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, this application for their release on bail. 6. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor on the other hand has opposed the application and contended that the detection of the contraband was pursuant to a reliable information received by the SI of Koratty Police Station. Hence, this application for their release on bail. 6. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor on the other hand has opposed the application and contended that the detection of the contraband was pursuant to a reliable information received by the SI of Koratty Police Station. On getting the information, after complying with the legal formalities under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, the police team headed by the SI waited in the bus stop near the Government Press, Koratty keeping all the vehicles passing through under surveillance and intercepted the lorry as well as the car and thus the petitioners were arrested along with the other accused. On interrogation it was revealed that the ganja was procured by them together and transported in the lorry as well as in the car. The search was conducted as contemplated under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and all the mandatory requirements for the seizure and search were correctly complied with. The narcotic items found concealed in the lorry and the car were seized by the S.I. and his team and there was no violation of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act is the stand taken by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is also reported by the learned Public Prosecutor that the 1st petitioner/the 1st accused is having criminal antecedents as he is involved in another crime registered before the Wadakkanchery police station, granting of bail at this stage will definitely affect the investigation of the case adversely. The prosecution has also opposed the application contending that the transportation of narcotic items in the car as well in the lorry was after procuring the same together from the 6th accused, who is yet to be arrested. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised the plea of false implication and submitted that they were not found in exclusive possession of drugs and so if they are denied bail, they will be deprived of legal assistance to defend their case. On the other hand the learned Sr. Public Prosecutor resisted the said argument pointing out the seriousness and gravity of the offences committed by them. 8. The prosecution records would indicate that they were in the car along with 3rd accused and contraband was seized from the car they were travelling, as well from the lorry under the control of the petitioners as well the accused 4 and 5. 9. 8. The prosecution records would indicate that they were in the car along with 3rd accused and contraband was seized from the car they were travelling, as well from the lorry under the control of the petitioners as well the accused 4 and 5. 9. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, nothing objectionable was recovered in their body search and hence it indicate that the contraband was not seized from their exclusive possession. But the learned Sr. Public Prosecutor has relied on the decision in Madan Lal and Another v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2003 KHC 1550) and argued that as these petitioners were found together traveling in the car, and the contraband concealed was recovered from the car and lorry they were in conscious possession and control of the contraband seized by the detecting officer. How conscious possession can be determined is explained in Madan Lal's case (supra) as follows: ''23. The word conscious means awareness about a particular fact. It is a state of mind which is deliberate or intended.'' Further it is observed that: ''26. Once possession is established the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it, because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge. S.35 of the Act gives a statutory recognition of this position because of presumption available in law. Similar is the position in terms of S.54 where also presumption is available to be drawn from possession of illicit articles.'' 10. Therefore, their contention that they were not found in conscious possession of the contraband have to be established by them with reference to the factual backdrop, at trial. (See. Dharampal Singh v. State of Punjab (2010 KHC 4698)). In Kulwinder Singh and another v. State of Punjab (2015 KHC 3116) the Apex Court observed that if a person is found in possession of narcotic drugs while he was travelling in a truck/vehicle in which the drugs were transported and he is found in control of the articles, he is presumed to be in conscious possession and the burden is upon him to prove that he was not in conscious possession, at the time of trial. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that they were not in 'conscious possession' and had no knowledge about the sacks and its contents have to be established by them at the time of trial of the case. Now the investigation of the case is only at the initial stage. It is also significant to note that prima facie the 1st petitioner was found sitting in the front seat of the car in which the 2nd petitioner was the driver and the vehicle was not a public vehicle. (Also See Baldev Singh v. State of Haryana (2015 KHC 4738). In short, the records would prima facie indicate that the ganja seized was found in their conscious possession and they transported it along with the other accused together from Tamil Nadu after collecting it from the 6th accused. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously argued that the search and recovery were not in compliance with the mandatory provisions prescribed under the NDPS Act and so it would vitiate the entire search and recovery proceedings. It is significant to note that the detecting officer had seized the articles kept concealed in the lorry and car and personal search of the petitioners and the other accused were conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer as requested by them when informed of their right for the same. Of-course nothing objectionable was recovered in personal search. But the contraband was found in sacks hidden on the back side platform of the lorry covered with a polythene sheet and also in sack in the dicky of the car and the same were seized. The learned Sr. Public Prosecutor relies on the decision in State of Punjab v. Baljinder Singh and Another (2019 KHC 7150) where it is held that if search of the vehicle and recovery of the contraband pursuant thereto is proved, non compliance of Sec.50 of the Act as far as personal search was concerned, will not invalidate the effect of recovery from search of the vehicle. The Apex Court has observed that the mandate of Section 50 of the Act is confined to 'personal search' and not to search of a vehicle or a container or premises as the section expressly speaks of search of person. (Also See, State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999 KHC 707). 12. The Apex Court has observed that the mandate of Section 50 of the Act is confined to 'personal search' and not to search of a vehicle or a container or premises as the section expressly speaks of search of person. (Also See, State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999 KHC 707). 12. Here the prosecution case itself is that the drugs were transported together by the accused Nos.1 to 5 in a car and lorry with the help and assistance of the 6th accused after procuring it from him. Prima facie the records would reveal that both the vehicles were coming together with narcotic items and commercial quantity of drugs were seized from the conscious possession of the petitioners and the accused 3 to 5, and thus they were arrested with the contraband and the case was registered. Prima facie, the materials on record indicate that they were in conscious possession of the contraband and the search and seizure will not render the case of the prosecution unreliable. It is also significant to note that the NDPS Act provides a reverse burden of proof, contrary to the normal rule of criminal jurisprudence. 13. Moreover in a case where commercial quantity of drug is recovered, granting of bail is circumscribed by the provisions of Sections of 37 of the Act. As per Section 37 (1) (b) (ii) where Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court shall be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence alleged and there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 14. In State of Kerala v. Rajesh ( 2020 (1) KHC 557 ) the Apex Court held as under : “20. The scheme of S. 37 reveals that the exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained under S. 439 of the Cr.PC, but is also subject to the limitation placed by S.37 which commences with non-obstante clause. The operative part of the said section is in the negative form prescribing the enlargement of bail to any person accused of commission of an offence under the Act, unless twin conditions are satisfied. The operative part of the said section is in the negative form prescribing the enlargement of bail to any person accused of commission of an offence under the Act, unless twin conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application; and the second, is that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban of granting bail operates. 21. The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of S.37 that in addition to the limitations provided under the Cr.PC, or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for.” 15. In Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow v. Md. Nawaz Khan (Crl.Appeal No.1043 of 2021) the Apex Court while dealing with an appeal in a bail matter, where narcotic drug was not found in personal search, but commercial quantity of drug was found concealed in the vehicle in which the accused was travelling observed that the circumstances of the case has to be evaluated with regard to the provisions of Section 37, after referring mainly to the decision in Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari ( 2007 (7) SCC 798 ) and then reversed the order of granting bail by the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, with specific mention that due weight ought to have given to the seriousness and gravity of the crime. 16. When the materials in the present case are evaluated keeping in view of the proposition of law as enunciated in the above referred decisions, I have no doubt to hold that the petitioners could not establish a case so as to entitle them to get an order of bail at this stage. 16. When the materials in the present case are evaluated keeping in view of the proposition of law as enunciated in the above referred decisions, I have no doubt to hold that the petitioners could not establish a case so as to entitle them to get an order of bail at this stage. So also the apprehension expressed by them that there can be no fair trial, and efficacious conduct of defence is not possible if they remain in custody is without any merits. Interest of the society has a predominant role and so the court has to take into consideration of the same while granting bail. Long period of incarceration is not at all a ground to enlarge the accused on bail in a case where huge quantity of narcotic items are involved. 17. It is quite unfortunate and disturbing to note that though so many cases are being registered every day and persons engaged with peddling of narcotic drugs are apprehended, our investigating agencies could not trace out the source/origin from where the peddlers are procuring the narcotic drugs for illegal sale. The life of the general public, the physical and mental health of people especially the youngsters that means the future of the society, are spoiled and ruined due to the nefarious activities of drugs trafficking. So the source/origin from where the drug traffickers are collecting/procuring the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, have to be detected and track down to curb the social menace, otherwise the object of the NDPS Act will be defeated. 18. As mentioned above, whether there was compliance of the procedure laid down under Section 42 of the NDPS Act or not, could be ascertained at the time of trial. Prima facie it appears that there was compliance of all the mandatory provisions and the petitioners were found in conscious possession of drugs in commercial quantity. That be so, I find absolutely no justification or reasonable grounds to believe or at least to presume that the petitioners are totally innocent of the allegations levelled against them. For the foregoing reasons, these petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail. Dismissed.