Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
Siraj Vellarambil Mohammed – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the drug charges against the petitioner. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding the acquittal of co-accused and its implications. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's consideration of the acquittal and lack of evidence for continued detention. (Para 9 , 10) |
ORDER :
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
This bail application is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’).
2. Petitioner is the third accused in O.R. No.4 of 2019 of Narcotic Control Bureau, Kochi, Ernakulam registered for the offences punishable under sections 22(c), 23(c), 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).
3. According to the prosecution, pursuant to information received on 02.09.2019, the first accused was found in possession of 490 grams of methamphetamine in a hand baggage, as he was about to travel out of India in Qatar Airways flight QR 537. The investigation revealed that the third accused had handed over the bag containing the contraband articles to the second accused, who in turn, handed it over to the first accused and thus, the accused together committed the offences alleged.
4. The first and s
Acquittal of co-accused creates a presumption of innocence, requiring substantial evidence for continued detention under NDPS Act.
When a bail application involves commercial quantities of contraband under the NDPS Act, the court must strictly apply the provisions of Section 37, requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accuse....
A prima facie case for drug-related offences can exist without possession of contraband if evidence of conspiracy is present, and bail court findings are not binding on trial courts.
The court upheld that bail cannot be granted in narcotics cases without clear evidence supporting innocence amidst established serious allegations.
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.
The court determined that lack of direct evidence ties the accused to the crime, allowing bail under certain conditions.
The court found reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner is not guilty of drug-related offences, allowing bail despite NDPS Act restrictions.
The court ruled that in cases of intermediate quantity possession under the NDPS Act, the rigorous conditions of Section 37 are not applicable, allowing for bail.
The court reiterated that previous bail refusals under Section 37 of the NDPS Act limit eligibility for future applications regardless of parity arguments.
The lack of substantive evidence linking the applicant to the alleged crime allows for bail to be granted under the 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
