Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bechu Kurian Thomas
Leena Jacob Thundiyil – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor – Respondent
ORDER :
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.
This bail application is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'NDPS Act'))
2. Petitioner is the 6th accused in Crime No.1232 of 2024 of Anchal Police Station, Kollam registered for the offences punishable under sections 22(c), 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').
3. According to the prosecution, on 25.11.2024, the 1st accused was found to be in possession of 3.550 grams of MDMA and thereafter on further inspection, 76.660 grams of MDMA was seized from the residence of the 2nd accused kept for sale and the 6th accused is alleged to have financed the procurement of the contraband and thereby the accused committed the offences alleged.
4. Petitioner was arrested on 05.02.2025 and she has been in custody since then.
5. Sri.Anish Antony Anathazhath, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire prosecution allegations are false and the incident as alleged did not occur. It was also submitted that the petitioner has no connection with the offence alleged and she has been roped in as an accused without any specific material to connect her wit
The court found reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner is not guilty of drug-related offences, allowing bail despite NDPS Act restrictions.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; absence of contraband justifies granting bail even under stringent statutes.
For bail under NDPS Act, the accused must prove reasonable grounds for believing they are not guilty and unlikely to re-offend.
The court determined that the gravity of charges under the NDPS Act justified the denial of bail despite claims of parity.
Inadequate evidence connecting the accused to the alleged crime justifies bail under NDPS Act.
Confessions of co-accused cannot constitute substantive evidence for conviction; hence, absence of solid evidence connects the accused is paramount for bail consideration under the NDPS Act.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; the court can relax stringent conditions under the NDPS Act in certain circumstances.
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.
Acquittal of co-accused creates a presumption of innocence, requiring substantial evidence for continued detention under NDPS Act.
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
