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) 3275

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : ADVS. SMT.IPSITA OJAL SHRI.P.K.ANIL
For the Respondent: ADVS. O.M.SHALINA, SMT.KRISHNA S., CGC SMT.DR.MENAKA GURUSWAMY (SR.)

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.

Headnote:(A) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21(4); Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 18, 20, 39, 40; Indian Penal Code - Sections 120B, 125, 465, 471; Arms Act, 1959 - Section 7 r/w 25(IAA); Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8

(C), 21

(C), 23

(C) - Criminal appeal against bail rejection - Appellants arrested for serious offences including drug trafficking and arms possession; arrested under dire circumstances with allegations of unlawful activities - Arrest was made in the vicinity of Indian maritime jurisdiction with substantial evidence of complicity; court dismissed bail application citing seriousness of charges and flight risk. (Paras 1, 4, 6, 10, 34)

(B) Criminal procedure - Bail considerations - Primary focus on gravity of charges, likelihood of absconding, and the nature and context of offences; bail not to be granted unless clear lack of prima facie case is established. (Paras 19, 30)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were arrested on 27.03.2021, charged with serious crimes including possession of significant quantities of heroin and arms aboard a Sri Lankan vessel intercepted near Indian waters. The appellants claim wrongful detention and absence of substantial evidence against them. They have no prior records and argue procedural violations in the arrest process.

Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient evidence indicating active involvement in unlawful activities as outlined by statutes and dismissed the bail plea, affirming the prior ruling with emphasis on the necessity of a speedy trial.

Issues: The court evaluated the validity of the bail refusal based on the seriousness of charges and potential flight risk against the backdrop of statutory restrictions under UAPA.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that serious allegations necessitate a stricter bail standard, upholding the need for a prompt and thorough trial, especially given the circumstantial evidence of unlawful activities and potential risks associated with bail release. Legal precedent indicates that the burden of proof lies with the accused in establishing a lack of prima facie involvement.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

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

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