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) 58727

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J
ABDUL SAMAD PANNIYODAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 14624 OF 2025 | O.S No. 167/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ, SRI.P.M.MATHEW, SRI.BIBIN MATHEW, SMT.VISHNUMAYA ANANDAN, SRI.AMARNATH R LAL, SHRI.SANALDEV E.P., SHRI.SONYMON ANTONY, SMT.SHIFANA M., SHRI.ABHIJITH P.A.
For the Respondents: SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR, SRI RENJITH GEORGE SR PP

Judicial incarceration unnecessary for mild offenders; bail granted under specific conditions when intermediate quantity involved.

Headnote:The petition seeking regular bail after being charged with offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, revolves around the legality of the detention of the petitioner holding 6.446 kg of ganja. The court finds the ongoing investigation has progressed significantly without further necessity for the petitioner’s judicial incarceration considering the petitioner has no prior criminal record. The court observes that the provisions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act regarding bail are not applicable due to the intermediate quantity seized. Resultantly, bail is granted with specific conditions pending the final report.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's claim of possessing ganja. (Para 1 , 2)
2. contradicting views of legal counsel. (Para 4 , 5)
3. evidence against petitioner. (Para 6)
4. conditions for bail granted. (Para 7)

ORDER

This petition seeking regular bail has been filed by the first accused in O.S No. 167/2025 of Air Intelligence Unit, Cochin International Airport, registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 (b)(ii)(B), 23(b), 28, 29 r/w 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (NDPS Act).

2. The prosecution alleges that on 03.11.2025, customs officers at Cochin International Airport intercepted the first accused and, upon inspection, found him in possession of 6.446 kg of ganja, intended for sale, in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act, thereby committing the aforementioned offences.

3. I heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides and perused the available records.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is baseless. The learned counsel urged that since the investigation in this case is practically over, further judicial incarceration of the petitioner is unwarranted. According to the learned counsel, the contraband allegedly seized from the possession of the petitioner falls within the category of intermediate quantity; therefore, the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act governing the grant of bail is not attracted in the present case. It is further contended that, considering the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner and the stage of the investigation, some leniency ought to be shown in the matter of bail.

5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application by highlighting the serious nature of the offence alleged against the petitioner.

6. The allegation that the petitioner possessed 6.446 kg of ganja for the purpose of sale, regardless of the prohibition contained under the NDPS Act, cannot be viewed lightly. A perusal of the records reveals that the accusation against the petitioner is prima facie well- founded. This is a case in which the petitioner was allegedly caught red- handed with the contraband by the customs officers on 03.11.2025 from Cochin International Airport. The petitioner has been under judicial custody from 04.11.2025 onwards. The investigation in this case appears to have progressed substantially. An in-depth investigation is imperative to unearth the details involved and to bring to light all those who are parties to the conspiracy hatched in the present case.

7. Anyhow, it is also pertinent to note that no criminal antecedents are pointed out against the petitioner. As already stated, the petitioner has been under judicial custody since 04.11.2025. As evident from the records, as part of the investigation, the petitioner was interrogated and his statement has already been recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. As the investigation has crossed its major and crucial part, further judicial incarceration of the petitioner would serve no purpose. Moreover, the quantity of ganja seized in this case is intermediate quantity. Therefore, the rigour contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for the grant of bail is not applicable in this case. Hence, having regard to the days of detention already undergone by the petitioner and the present stage of investigation, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions;

1. Petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

2. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. for a period of three months or until the final report is filed, whichever occurs first.

3. The petitioner shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required and shall co-operate with the investigation.

4. The peti

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