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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 1263

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
SALAHUDHEEN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 83 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri. Vishnu Das, Sri. Sruthi Das, Smt. Maria Neethu T.J, Smt. Anagha A.S.
For the Respondents: Sri. M.C. Ashi, Sr. PP.

The court denies bail based on serious allegations and history of repeat offenses.

Headnote:The application seeks bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning alleged possession of narcotics. The prosecution claims applicant was found with 4.065 kgs of ganja, constituting serious allegations under the NDPS Act. The court finds applicant’s past violations during bail pertinent, ultimately dismissing the bail application. The decisive questions considered included the credibility of evidence and repeat offenses. The court emphasizes premeditated actions warranting denial of bail, concluding with the application dismissal.

Table of Content
1. application under bnss for bail regarding ndps violations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments presented on behalf of the applicant and prosecution. (Para 4 , 5)

O R D E R

This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short, BNSS ) seeking regular bail.

2. The applicant is the accused No.1 in Crime No.78/2024 of Excise Enforcement and Anti-Narcotic Special Squad, Kottayam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 20 (b) (ii)(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (for short, NDPS Act).

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant along with accused No.2 was found in possession of 4.065 kgs of dried ganja on the Kottayam-Kumarakam Road near Coco Bay Resort in Kumarakam Kara in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act.

4. I have heard Sri.Vishnu Das, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.M.C. Ashi, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to bail. On the other hand, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant, and he is not entitled to bail at this stage.

6. The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on

19.06.2024. A perusal of the case diary would reveal that the accusation against the applicant is very serious, and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on his part. The applicant was initially granted bail on 13.08.2024. After being released on bail, he violated condition No.5 in the bail order and was involved in two other similar crimes. Hence, his bail was cancelled and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.10.2025. Since then he has been in judicial custody. As the applicant has committed two similar offences during bail, I am of the view that he cannot be released on bail.

The bail application, accordingly, is dismissed.

Sd/-

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