ORDER : P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.8/2024 of Anthroth Police Station, Lakshadweep. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 22(b), 27(A) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) and Section 3(a) of the LPR (Lakshadweep Prohibition Regulation) 1979. Petitioner was arrested on 07.10.2024 and he is continuing in the judicial custody. 3. The prosecution case is that, on 07.10.2024, while a police party was on routine patrol duty, they observed the 1 st accused, who is the petitioner herein behaving in a suspicious manner near Panda Mosque, Androth. Acting on suspicion, the detecting officer conducted a body search of 1st accused. During the search, the ofÏcer recovered two packets of contraband concealed inside a Gold Flake cigarette cover, the contraband was identified as MDMA weighing approximately 5 grams in total. After removing the cover, the quantity of MDMA assessed as 4.5 grams. Petitioner was arrested on 07.10.2025. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel appearing for the Union Territory, Lakshadweep. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, admittedly the quantity seized is intermediate quantity and therefore, the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted. The counsel submitted that there is no criminal antecedents to the petitioner. The counsel also submitted that Section 27(A) of the NDPS Act is subsequently added with a view to deny bail to the petitioner. The counsel submitted that according to the prosecution, there is a money transaction between the petitioner and the wife of the 2 nd accused. It is submitted that even if there is a single transaction, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in State of West Bengal v Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh [2022 Livelaw (SC) 580] , the Section 27(A) of the NDPS Act is not attracted. The Standing Counsel appearing for the Union Territory of Lakshadweep, seriously opposed the bail application. The Standing Counsel takes me through the report filed by the Investigating officer in this case and submitted that it is a clear case in which Section 27(A) of the NDPS Act is attracted. The Standing Counsel appearing for the Union Territory of Lakshadweep, seriously opposed the bail application. The Standing Counsel takes me through the report filed by the Investigating officer in this case and submitted that it is a clear case in which Section 27(A) of the NDPS Act is attracted. There is CCTV footage and other materials to show that there is a financial transaction between the petitioner and the wife of the 2 nd accused. It is also submitted that there are details of phone calls between accused Nos.1 and 2. Hence, it is submitted that Section 27(A) of the NDPS Act is applicable and therefore, the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted. 6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the quantity of contraband seized is intermediate quantity. It is also an admitted fact that originally the case was registered under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act alone. Subsequently Section 27A of the NDPS Act is added. The respondents rely on the financial transaction between the petitioner and the wife of the 2 nd accused, which is narrated in paragraph Nos.4 & 5 of the report filed by the Investigating OfÏcer. It will be better to extract the same: "4. The offense committed by the accused is extremely serious in nature. The investigation is in its final stage. There are clear evidences that Shanavas KC (A1) has transferred money and made a phone call to Mohammed Navab Shareef KI (A2), for importing MDMA from Kochi to the island. There are evidences to the effect that the petitioner is a financier and peddler of the drug trafÏcking in the islands. There are CC Tv footages which shows that the Al depositing Rs.50,000 in A2's wife's Account. The CCTV footage from the Thopumpady Canara branch shows that the A2 withdrawing part of the same amount from her wife's account .The involvement of others are also to be investigated as there is a transit of narcotic substance from the main land to the islands 5. On August 4, 2024, Mohammed Navab Shareef KI (A2) traveled from Kochi to Androth Island on the MV Lagoons, carrying MDMA. On the following day, August 5, 2024, A2 handed over the MDMA to Shanavas KC (A1) in Androth. Phone records show that they made seven calls to each other on the same day. On August 4, 2024, Mohammed Navab Shareef KI (A2) traveled from Kochi to Androth Island on the MV Lagoons, carrying MDMA. On the following day, August 5, 2024, A2 handed over the MDMA to Shanavas KC (A1) in Androth. Phone records show that they made seven calls to each other on the same day. It Shows that the first accused had contacted the A2 59 times from 1.5.2024 to 7.10.2024. A2 had contacted the Al for more than 46 times in turn." 7. From the above it is clear that, there is only a single transaction. The prosecution is also relying on the phone calls. The Apex Court in Rakesh Singh's case (supra) considered an appeal by the State of West Bengal, against an order passed by the Culcutta High Court. The Culcutta High Court's finding is extracted in the above judgment. It will be better to extract the same also: " Fourthly, in so far as the offence under Section 27A of the NDPS Act is concerned, i.e. financing illicit traficking and harbouring offenders, prima facie we do not find material evidence to support that charge. In our view, being involved in one solitary transaction concerning contraband items will not amount to financing illicit trafic in narcotics. The word "traficking" connotes continuous flow. There has to be some degree of continuity and regularity in drug dealing before a person can be said to be traficking in drugs. Similarly, financing illicit trafic would necessarily mean doing so on a regular or continuous basis. It is much more than purchasing or selling contraband items on one occasion. Such a solitary transaction would, in our prima facie opinion, not fall within the mischief of Section 27A of the NDPS Act. In this connection, one may refer to a decision of the Bombay High Court rendered on October 7, 2020 in Criminal Bail Application (Stamp) No. 2386 of 2020 (Reha Chakraborty v. The Union of India State of Maharashtra)." 8. The above finding is confirmed by the Apex Court. 9. The other point raised by the prosecution is that, there is some phone calls between accused Nos.1 and 2. That is a settled position that, that alone is sufficient to prove the ingredients of Section 27(A ) of the NDPS Act. 10. Admittedly the petitioner is in custody from 07.10.2024; i.e., he is in custody for about 151 days. 9. The other point raised by the prosecution is that, there is some phone calls between accused Nos.1 and 2. That is a settled position that, that alone is sufficient to prove the ingredients of Section 27(A ) of the NDPS Act. 10. Admittedly the petitioner is in custody from 07.10.2024; i.e., he is in custody for about 151 days. If Section 27(A) of the NDPS Act is not attracted, the quantity seized is only intermediate quantity. There is no criminal antecedents also. From the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not ready to accept the contention of the prosecution that Section 27(A) of NDPS Act is attracted. But, I make it clear that, it is only for the purpose of deciding this bail application and the Investigating Officer is free to investigate the matter untrammeled by any observation in this order. The principle laid down by this Court in Anzar Azeez v State of Kerala [2025 Livelaw (Ker) 144] squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. But, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. But, I make it clear that, if the petitioner is involved in similar offence in future, the Investigating OfÏcer can file appropriate application before the Jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail and if such an application is filed, the Jurisdictional Court can pass appropriate orders in it, eventhough, this order is passed by this Court. 11. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement [ 2019 (16) SCALE 870 ], after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. 12. Moreover, in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India [ 2024 KHC 6431 ] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: “21. Before we part with the Judgment, we must mention here that the Special Court and the High Court did not consider the material in the charge sheet objectively. 12. Moreover, in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India [ 2024 KHC 6431 ] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: “21. Before we part with the Judgment, we must mention here that the Special Court and the High Court did not consider the material in the charge sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of PFI, and therefore, the appellant's case could not be properly appreciated. When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. "Bail is the rule and jail is an exception" is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Art.21 of our Constitution.” (underline supplied) 13. In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 KHC 6426] , also the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: “53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well - settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non - grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception". On account of non - grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception". Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions: 1. Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co- operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. 5. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there is any violation of the above conditions.