IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
LY Nandana S/O LY Upajeev - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Represented By Deputy Solicitor General Of India - Respondent
CRL.A NO. 1766 OF 2025
Decided on : 19-11-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the criminal appeal regarding bail. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by the appellants regarding wrongful detention and violations. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. respondent's objections highlighting the seriousness of charges. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. court's analysis of procedural and statutory considerations regarding bail. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 5. court's conclusion on the gravity of charges and the decision to deny bail. (Para 32 , 33) |
Judgment :
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
1. The instant Criminal Appeal under section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act , 2008 has been filed on behalf of the appellants 1 & 2, being aggrieved by the order dated 27.08.2025 passed in Crl.M.P No.117/2025 in SC No.04/2021/NIA by the Special Court for Trial of NIA cases, Ernakulam; whereby the application filed by the appellants for grant of bail has been rejected.
2. The appellants have been arrested on 27.03.2021 in relation to Crime No.RC-01/NIA/KOC in 2021 registered at Vizhinjam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram regarding offences punishable under Sections 120B , 125, 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code , (hereinafter referred to as IPC ) and Sections 18 , 20,38, 39 & 40 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act , 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ UAPA ’), Section 7 r/w 25(IAA) of the Arms Act , 1959 and Sections 8 (C) and 21(C), 23(C), 24, 25 & 27A, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS).
Facts
3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 18.03.2021, the Indian Coast Guard intercepted a Srilankan Fishing vessel, “Ravi Hansi”, Near Minicoy Island, Lakshadweep, where the Indian Coast Guard recovered 300.323 Kilograms of Heroin, AK-47 rifles, and 1000 rounds of 9 mm ammunition of Pakistani Origin from 6 Srilankan Nationals and later on brought to Vizhinjam Harbour, Thiruvananthapuram on 25.03.2021.
3.1 The Indian Coast Guard submitted a confidential FIR regarding apprehension of SLFB “Ravihansi” dated 25.03.2021 to the Superintendent of Narcotics Control Bureau, Kochi, (hereinafter called the NCB). The NCB Sub Zone, Vizhinjam Port prepared the mahazar on 25.03.2021 and the search and seizure was completed at 15.30 hrs. on 26.03.2021. The NCB Sub Zone, Kochi, Kerala vide Occurrence Report No.2/2021 dated 27.03.2021 registered case for seizure of 300.323 Kgs of Heroin from the boat and thereafter submitted a written complaint at the Vizhinjam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The NCB arrested the appellants on 27.03.2021. During investigation, the National Investigation Agency (hereinafter referred to as ‘NIA’) recorded statement of 206 witnesses. The appellants approached the Special Court for trial of NIA cases seeking bail. However, the special Judge dismissed the bail applications vide the impugned order dated 27.08.2025.
Appellants’ submissions
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. Though the prosecution case is based on suspicion and indeed, there is nothing on record against the present appellants. No offence, as alleged, is made out against them as necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are completely missing. The appellants have no criminal antecedents and if the appellants are kept under incarceration for a long period, it will adversely affect the family and cause irreparable loss.
5. As per Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India,
“every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest Magistrate within a period of 24 hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the Magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a Magistrate”.
6. As per the statement of CW5, the exact location of the alleged interce
D.K Basu v. State of West Bengal
Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v State of Maharashtra and Another
The court emphasized that serious charges and lack of indicia of innocence justify bail denial, underlining procedural integrity and statutory compliance in unlawful activity cases.
Prolonged pre-trial detention mandates consideration for bail under Article 21, emphasizing the need for sufficient evidence linking the accused to criminal conspiracy under the UAPA.
Prolonged detention without trial can violate the right to a speedy trial, qualifying an accused for bail under Article 21, despite serious charges linking them to anti-national activities.
Long custody without trial can justify bail under UAPA, emphasizing the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.