Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
Mohasin Ali Mylivalap S/o.abdul Salampil – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused arrested for possession (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. counsel argues for bail (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court reviews prior decisions (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. bail principles established (Para 10 , 11) |
ORDER :
2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.2246/2023 of Vanchiyoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the contraband seized is commercial quantity and therefore, Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted.
“On consideration of the above facts, I find that prima facie there is a violation of S.50 of the Act and there is a reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In other words, the petitioner has substantiated the first limb of clause (ii) S.37 (i) (b)of the NDPS Act. Now the question to be considered is whether the petitioner has satisfied the second limb of the said clause of S.37
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; the court can relax stringent conditions under the NDPS Act in certain circumstances.
Prolonged incarceration due to prosecution delays can justify bail, overriding statutory restrictions under the NDPS Act, in light of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Prolonged incarceration due to prosecution delays may override statutory bail restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, emphasizing personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Prolonged incarceration due to prosecution delays can allow bail despite statutory restrictions under the NDPS Act, as it violates the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Prolonged incarceration without trial violates Article 21, allowing bail despite restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; solitary transactions do not constitute financing illicit trafficking under Section 27(A) of the NDPS Act.
The court determines that the detention of a petitioner for an NDPS offence is unnecessary due to the nature and quantity of the contraband, allowing bail with conditions.
The court determined that continued detention was unnecessary as the applicant presented no substantial evidence of guilt, thus granting bail.
Bail applications related to serious narcotic offenses necessitate careful consideration of evidence and accused's past conduct.
Bail under NDPS Act requires meeting specific conditions; mere custody duration is insufficient for bail.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
