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) 8903

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
MUHAMMED NAZIL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 13117 OF 2025 | CRIME NO.615/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.LLOYD JOHN, SHRI.JERRY MATHEW, SMT.DEVIKA K.R.
For the Respondents: SRI.K.A. NOUSHAD, SR. PP

Bail granted based on insufficient evidence linking accused to drug trafficking; guidelines established for conditions of bail.

Headnote:The application was filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, seeking bail. The facts indicate accused was involved in drug trafficking, specifically purchasing and distributing MDMA. The court found insufficient evidence to deny bail, allowing the application due to the absence of substantial material connecting the accused to the crime. The main issues included the applicant's implications and findings from the prosecution case. The court reasoned that since the analysis indicated Methamphetamine rather than MDMA, the severity under Section 37 of the NDPS Act was not applicable, leading to granting bail. Consequently, the application was allowed, subject to certain conditions.

Table of Content
1. bail application details and accusations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. legal arguments presented by both parties. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's observations leading to bail decision. (Para 6)

ORDER

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.615/2025 of Erumapetty Police Station, Thrissur District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 22 (c) read with 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’).

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that accused Nos.1 to 4 are part of drug trafficking syndicate. The applicant purchased MDMA from accused Nos.3 and 4, while the applicant handed over 37 grams of MDMA so purchased to the accused No.2 for the purpose of sale and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri. Lloyd John, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.K.A.Noushad, 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 28.08.2025. The investigation is almost over. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor submits that as per the chemical analysis report, the contraband seized was found to be Methamphetamine and not MDMA. Therefore, it is an intermediate quantity. Hence, the rigor under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted. For these reasons, I do not find any reason to hold that the continued detention of the applicant is required for any purpose. Hence, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions: -

(i) The applicant shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate/Court.

(ii) The applicant shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m. every Saturday until further orders. He shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required.

(iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence of a like nature while on bail.

(v) The applicant shall not attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

(vi) The applicant shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.

(vii) The application, if any, for deletion/modification of the bail conditions or cancellation of bail on the grounds of violating the bail conditions shall be filed at the jurisdictional court.

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