Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 43191
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
HARIKRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl. No. 11152 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.S.RAJEEV, SRI.V.VINAY, SRI.M.S.ANEER, SHRI.SARATH K.P., SHRI.ANILKUMAR C.R., SHRI.K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN, SMT.DIPA V., SHRI.AKASH CHERIAN THOMAS, SHRI.AZAD SUNIL, SRI.RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN
For the Respondents: SRI. PRASANTH M.P.
An accused's detention is unlawful if not presented before a Magistrate within 24 hours as stipulated under Article 22(2) of the Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20(b)(ii)(A), 22(c), 8 - Custodial violation - Petitioner arrested and produced beyond 24 hours without judicial oversight, violating constitutional rights - Resulting in unlawful detention. (Paras 4-10)
(B) Bail - Grant of bail should be considered in light of the law and facts, including period of custody and absence of supporting evidence implicating the petitioner as an accused. (Paras 11-12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused in a narcotics case, argued illegal arrest due to police's failure to produce him before a Magistrate within 24 hours of custody, supported by precedent.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner’s extended custody was deemed unlawful as he was not presented to the nearest Magistrate timely, warranting bail grant.
Issues: The primary issues included unlawful detention under Article 22(2) and the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The period of 24 hours for presentation to a Magistrate is calculated from the effective detention time, not the time recorded for arrest, reaffirming protections against unlawful custody.
Result: Bail application granted subject to specific conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. illegal arrest and unlawful detention due to failure to present before magistrate. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. custodial timeline must respect the 24-hour rule for judicial oversight. (Para 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 3. bail granted based on the unlawful nature of continued detention. (Para 11 , 12) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TH WEDNESDAY, THE 24 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 2ND ASWINA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 11152 OF 2025 CRIME NO.689/2024 OF NEDUMBASSERY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 18.07.2025 IN Bail Appl.
NO.8179 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2: HARIKRISHNAN, AGED 29 YEARS S/O SURESH KUMAR, KOOVILLIL HOUSE, OORAKAM, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676519.
BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.V.VINAY SRI.M.S.ANEER SHRI.SARATH K.P.
SHRI.ANILKUMAR C.R.
SHRI.K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN SMT.DIPA V.
SHRI.AKASH CHERIAN THOMAS SHRI.AZAD SUNIL SRI.RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER NEAR AIRPORT NEDUMBASSERY, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683585.
BY SRI. PRASANTH M.P., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......….............................................
B.A. No.11152 of 2025 …................................................
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).
2. Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.689/2024 of Nedumbassery Police Station, Ernakulam; registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20 (b)(ii)(A), 22(c) and 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 [for short, ‘NDPS Act’].
3. The prosecution case is that, Sri. Azad-the first accused, was found in possession of 360 grams of MDMA, 2 LSD Stamps and 420 grams of ganja, and the second accused conspired to procure the contraband and the accused thereby committed the offences alleged. The first accused was arrested on 27.06.2024 while the petitioner’s arrest was recorded on
08.07.2024.
4. Sri.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not produced within 24 hours before the nearest Magistrate or the jurisdictional Magistrate, and therefore his arrest itself is illegal. The learned counsel further submitted that petitioner was initially taken into custody on 07.07.2024, from Bengaluru, and without producing him before the nearest Magistrate, he was transported to Kerala and was subjected to a medical examination at the Taluk Hospital, on 08.07.2024 at 6.20 am. It was also submitted that petitioner continued to be in police custody, and his arrest was recorded only in the evening of 08.07.2024, and he was produced before the Magistrate only at 3 pm on 09.07.2024. The learned counsel submitted that, in the light of the decision in Biswajit Mandal v. Inspector, Narcotic Control Bureau [ 2025 (4) KLT 866 ], petitioner’s custody having been retained by the police without producing him before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours from taking him into custody, is in violation of the custodial mandate, and hence, he ought to be released. The learned counsel further submitted that, even otherwise, considering the period of custody undergone by the petitioner from 07.07.2024 and the absence of any material to even implicate him as an accused, he ought to be released on bail. It was also submitted that petitioner has no criminal antecedents as well.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor relying upon the statement filed on behalf of the respondent submitted that the accused has direct involvement in the crime and that materials have been collected during investigation to implicate him as an accused, and therefore, bail ought not to be granted.
It was further submitted that the fi
