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) 53413

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J
HARITHA D – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 13993 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.ARUN CHAND, SHRI.VINAYAK G MENON, SHRI.BHARAT VIJAY P, SMT.MINU VITTORRIA PAULSON, SMT.ARCHANA P.P., SMT.SHEHROON PATEL A.K., SHRI.ALVIN JOSEPH
For the Respondents: SRI.M.C.ASHI

The court established that bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be granted without reasonable belief of innocence.

Headnote:This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The accused, alleged to have financed the procurement of narcotics, seeks bail post-arrest. The prosecution demonstrated a prima facie case under the NDPS Act. The court finds no ground for bail based on the evidence. The application is thus dismissed.

Table of Content
1. accused's involvement in narcotics procurement (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments regarding bail application (Para 6 , 7)
3. court's assessment of prima facie case (Para 8)

ORDER

This is an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), 2023.

2. The petitioner is accused No.4 in Crime No.1415/2025 of Kollam West Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 22 (c), 20(b)(ii)A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 ('NDPS Act' for short).

3. The prosecution case is that on 24.08.2025 at 11:42 hours, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kollam, seized 2.29 grams of ganja and 73.75 grams of MDMA from the possession of Accused No.1. Accused No.4 (the petitioner herein) had provided the money for procuring the contraband on behalf of another accused.

4. The petitioner was arrested on 23.09.2025, and she has been in judicial custody since then.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had no role in the procurement of the contraband substance and that she is entitled to be released on bail.

7. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of the petitioner and submitted that the Investigating Officer has placed credible materials to establish the involvement of the petitioner in the case. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the Bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted in the facts of the case.

8. I have gone through the case records. The prosecution has established a prima facie case. The offences alleged against the petitioner are grave. There are no reasonable grounds for believing that she is not guilty of the offences alleged, and that she is not likely to commit any such offence while on bail. Therefore, the Bar under Section 37 (1)(b) is applicable to the facts of the case.

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