SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 44802

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
RAMEES M.R – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Application No. 12052 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.SWETHA R., SHRI.T.K.SANDEEP
For the Respondents: SRI. PRASANTH M.P., PP

Custody should not be continued unnecessarily without trial; bail granted for possession of intermediate quantity of controlled substance.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 22(b), 8(c), and 29 - Bail application - Accused in custody for over 45 days for possession of methamphetamine is entitled to bail as prosecution did not establish necessity for continued detention. (Paras 7 and 8)

(B) Bail - Conditions for granting bail include appearance before the Investigating Officer, prohibition against intimidating witnesses, and restrictions on leaving the state or committing similar offenses. (Paras 8(a), 8(b), 8(c), 8(d), and 8(e))

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused of possessing 7.84 grams of methamphetamine and has been in custody since arrest on 20.08.2025. Prosecution argues for detention while defense claims false allegations.

Findings of Court:
The court found that methamphetamine quantity is intermediate, thus not invoking stricter bail provisions, and established that further detention is unnecessary.

Issues: The court addressed whether the conditions of bail were appropriate and if the continued detention of the accused was warranted given the nature of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that custody should not be continued unnecessarily when a significant duration has passed without trial, affirming fallback provisions for bail in the NDPS Act.

Result: Bail application allowed with conditions.

Table of Content
1. details of the alleged crime and arrest. (Para 2 , 3)
2. arguments for and against bail. (Para 5 , 6)
3. court's considerations for bail decision. (Para 7)
4. conditions imposed for bail grant. (Para 8)

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. 679/2025 of Walayar Police Station, Palakkad, registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 22 (b), 8(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS' Act').

3. According to the prosecution, on 19.08.2025, petitioner along with the first accused were found in possession of 7.84 grams of methamphetamine in a car bearing registration No.KL-09-AS-3945, and thereafter, on interrogation, it is revealed that the accused purchased the contraband from the third accused and thereby committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on 20.08.2025, and he has been in custody since then.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that prosecution allegations are false and that since petitioner has been in custody from 20.08.2025, he ought to be released on bail.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that he ought not to be released on bail.

7. Since the nature of contraband seized is found to be methamphetamine and the quantity of 7.84 grams fall under the category of intermediate quantity, the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not apply. As the petitioner has been in custody from 20.08.2025, and as there is no possibility of an immediate trial, I am of the view that his further detention is not necessary. Therefore, petitioner ought to be released on bail.

8. In the result, this bail application is allowed on the following conditions:-

(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

(b) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

(c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence. (d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

(e) Petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the jurisdictional Court.

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