SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 611

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Rahul Raj, S/o. Rajan - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala – Respondent 
B.A. Nos.8595 & 9292 of 2024
Decided On : 03-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADVS. K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN N.P.ASHA
For the Respondent: SRI G SUDHEER, PP

IMPORTANT POINT
Prolonged incarceration due to prosecution delays may warrant bail despite statutory restrictions under the NDPS Act, safeguarding the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21.

Headnote:

(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 22(c), 25, and 29 - Bail Applications - Petitioners accused of possession of commercial quantity of MDMA - Incarceration for over one year - Court considers the impact of prolonged incarceration on fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution - Cited cases indicate that delays caused solely by prosecution can warrant bail despite statutory restrictions. (Paras 6 , 10 , 11 )

(B) Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Right to personal liberty - Prolonged incarceration due to prosecution's inaction may override statutory bail restrictions under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act. (Paras 10 , 11 )

Facts of the case:

Petitioners arrested for possession of 109.5 gms of MDMA, with the 1st accused possessing 61.5 gms and the 2nd accused possessing 32.8 gms plus an additional 5.2 gms from a scooter. The petitioners have been in custody since 10.10.2023.

Findings of Court:

The court acknowledges the prosecution's failure to expedite the trial and allows petitioners to file a fresh bail application.

Issues: The main issue was whether prolonged incarceration due to prosecution delays justifies bail despite the NDPS Act's restrictions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that delays solely attributable to the prosecution can override the statutory restrictions on bail, affirming that personal liberty under Article 21 must be protected.

Result: Bail applications disposed of; petitioners may file a fresh bail application.

ORDER :

(P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.)

These Bail Applications are connected and therefore I am disposing these bail applications by a common order.

2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.28/2023 of Trivandrum Excise Range. The above case is registered against the petitioners and another alleging offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the NDPS Act).

3. The prosecution case is that, on 09.10.2023 at 9.15 pm, the 1st accused was found in possession of 61.5 gms of MDMA and the 2nd accused was found in possession of 32.8 gms of MDMA and another 5.2 gms of MDMA was seized from a Honda Deo Scooter belongs to the 2nd accused. Therefore the total quantity seized is 109.5 gms of MDMA. The petitioners were arrested on 10.10.2023.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.

5. The counsel appearing for the petitioners raised a short point. The counsel relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2024 Live Law (SC) 416], Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. The State of West Bengal [SLP to Appeal (Crl.) No.5769 of 2022] and Hasanujjaman and others v. The State of West Bengal [SLP to Appeal (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023], and submitted that when there is incarceration for more than one year and four months, the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted. The counsel submitted that, in this case the petitioners are in custody from 10.10.2023, and therefore the petitioners are entitled bail. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the Bail Applications.

6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. In Ankur Chaudhary's case (Supra) the Apex Court observed like this:-

“6. Now, on examination, the panch witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. On facts, we are not inclined to consider the Investigation Officer as a panch witness. It is to observe that failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may, in such circumstances, be considered.”

7. In Hasanujjaman's case (supra), the Apex Court considered a case in which the accused were in custody for one year and four months. In that case also the contraband seized is commercial quantity. Even then the Apex Court granted bail.

8. In Nitish Adhikary's case (supra) the Apex Court observed like this:-

“During the course of the hearing, we are informed that the petitioner has undergone custody for a period of 01 year and 07 months as on 09.06.2022. The trial is at a preliminary stage, as only one witness has been examined. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.”

9. This Court in Shuaib A.S v. State of Kerala [2025 SCC Online 618] this Court observed like this:-

10. Anyhow, as of now, Crl.M.C.No.8400/2024 filed by the NCB seeking to examine certain witnesses, was disposed on 06.01.2025 by another learned Single Judge. As per the order, even though the learned Single Judge found the reason for dismissal of the earlier petition, viz., CrlM.P.No.4651/2024, without assigning reasons for summoning the additional witnesses was to be justified, one more opportunity was given to the prosecution to file a fresh 311 petition clearly stating the reasons for examining the additional witnesses in consideration of the seriousness of the offences and this Court also observed that the time limit for disposal issued by this Court in the earlier bail application of the accused need not deter the court from exercising the power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. As of now, the Special Court has to consider a fresh 311 petition to be filed within one week from 06.01.2025 to proceed further in this matter. It is worthwhile to note that Section 37 of the NDPS Act is a speci

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top