Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 34462
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
VISHNUDATH @ VAVA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Application|B.A. No.7622 of 2025|Crime No.28/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH, SRI.LIBIN STANLEY, SMT.SAIPOOJA, SRI.SADIK ISMAYIL, SMT.R.GAYATHRI, SRI.M.MAHIN HAMZA, SHRI.ALWIN JOSEPH, SHRI.BENSON AMBROSE
For the Respondents: ADV. PRASANTH M.P.
The court upheld that the requirements for arrest under the NDPS Act were met and that considerations for bail include the accused's likelihood of guilt rather than the duration of custody.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20(b)(ii)
(C), 25, 8(c), 29 - Bail application for accused in possession of commercial quantity of ganja - Arrest grounds and procedures - Court finds that grounds for arrest were duly conveyed through arrest memo and intimation, satisfying legal requirements for arrest. (Paras 2-8)
(B) Bail - Considerations for grant - Supreme Court precedent establishes that length of custody and filing of charges are not decisive for bail under the NDPS Act, focusing instead on the accused's likelihood of innocence and future offense. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
Accused was arrested on 17.06.2024 for possessing 23.930 kilograms of ganja, and seeks bail citing false accusations and prolonged custody.
Findings of Court:
Grounds for arrest were conveyed, and the nature of possession constitutes valid grounds for arrest under the NDPS Act. The bail application was dismissed for lack of merit.
Issues: The court addressed the validity of arrest grounds and the appropriate considerations for bail under the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that requirements for arrest were satisfied and noted the judicial emphasis on assessing potential guilt rather than mere duration of custody in bail decisions.
Result: Bail application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail application under ndps act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. accused arrested for possession of ganja. (Para 3) |
| 3. court observations on arrest procedure and bail considerations. (Para 4) |
| 4. arguments for and against bail. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. consideration of arrest grounds. (Para 7) |
| 6. decision on the merits of bail application. (Para 9) |
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.28 of 2024 of Chathannur Police Station, Kollam registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20 (b)(ii)(C), 25, 8(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the NDPS Act’)
3. According to the prosecution, on 17.06.2024, accused were found in possession of 23.930 kilograms of ganja, and thereby committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on 17.06.2024, and he has been in custody since then.
4. I have heard Sri. Mohammed Sabah, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri. M. P. Prasanth, the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution allegations are false and the petitioner is innocent of the crime. It was also submitted that the petitioner was not informed of the grounds for arrest, and therefore, the very arrest itself is vitiated, and hence, the petitioner ought to be released on bail. The learned counsel also pointed out that even otherwise, considering the long period of detention from 17.06.2024 and also taking into consideration the quantity of contraband seized, petitioner ought to be released on bail.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor, however, submitted that the grounds for arrest have been intimated to the petitioner in the form of an arrest memo and an arrest intimation, both of which are supported by contemporaneous records in the form of a seizure mahazar, and therefore, the requirement of law for conveying the grounds for arrest has been satisfied. It was further submitted that since the quantity of contraband seized falls in the commercial category, the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will apply, and hence, petitioner ought not to be released on bail.
7. I have considered the rival contentions and also perused the copy of the seizure mahazar, the arrest memo, and the arrest intimation in relation to Crime No.28 of 2024 of Chathannur Excise Range. In the arrest memo it is specifically stated that petitioner was arrested on 17.06.2024 for possession and transportation of ganja. The arrest intimation of the same date also mention that petitioner is being arrested for possession of ganja, which was given to the wife of the accused. The contemporaneous records in the form of seizure mahazar also mention that the accused was intimated about the nature of offence committed by him and thereafter they were arrested. 8. In respect of offences under the NDPS Act, the very possession of the contraband itself is a ground for arrest. Under the Indian Penal Code 1860 or the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, mere possession of an article is not an offence. This is not so under the NDPS Act. In the instant case, the arrest memo specifically mentions that petitioner was in possession of ganja, and his wife has also been informed about the arrest with the specific information that the accused was in possession of ganja. Hence, I am of the view that grounds for arrest have been intimated to the petitioner as soon as may be after his arrest.
9. As far as the contention regarding long period of detention is concerned, in the decision in Narcotics Control Bureau V. Mohit Aggarwal [(2022) 18 SCC 374] , the Supreme Court has observed that the focus must be on the availability of reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence alleged against and also that he is unlikely to commit an offence under the Act. The Supreme Court went on to observe that the length of the period of custody or t
