Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 52961
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J
SREEJITH AGED 22 YEARS, S/O RAMAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 13425 OF 2025 | CRIME NO.22/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.SABU GEORGE, SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN
For the Respondents: SRI. M.C ASHI, SR.P.P
The court confirms the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in denying bail, highlighting the seriousness of the allegations.
Headnote:This is an application for bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023. Petitioners, accused Nos.2 and 3, are charged under NDPS Act for possessing methamphetamine. The petitioners claim innocence and stress the impact of their detention on their defense. The prosecution argues against bail citing Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Court finds the bar applies and dismisses the bail application.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused charged under ndps for possession of methamphetamine. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court finds applicability of section 37 ndps and dismisses bail. (Para 5 , 8) |
| 3. arguments presented by petitioners on innocence and prolonged incarceration. (Para 6 , 7) |
O R D E R
This is an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), 2023.
2. Petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.22/2025 of Excise Range Office, Koyilandy. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 22 (c) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.
3. The prosecution case as narrated in Annexure -A order reads thus-
“At about 10.20 hours on 03.06.2025, the petitioners along with another accused were found in conscious possession and transportation of 52.242 grams of methamphetamine in a Honda City car bearing registration no.KL-07-BN-3399 in the landed property owned by one Latheef Haji, near the house of Panthaliparambath Devi, Chemanchery Panchayat, Pookkad desom, Koyilandy Taluk. The accused possessed methamphetamine in violation of the provisions of section 8(c) of the NDPS Act and thus committed the above mentioned offence.” (sic)
4. The petitioners were arrested on 03/06/2025 and they have been in judicial custody since then.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
6. The case of the petitioners is that they are innocent of the allegations levelled against them. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prolonged incarceration of the petitioners will affect them in defending their case.
7. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of the petitioners and submitted that the prosecution could collect credible materials to establish the involvement of the petitioners. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that this is a case in which the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is applicable. The petitioners are involved in another crime, in which the offence alleged is punishable under Section 22 (a) of the NDPS Act.
8. I have gone through the Case Diary, which reveals the involvement of the petitioners. This is a case in which the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is applicable. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail.
The bail application stands dismissed.
