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) 23619

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
NICKOLAS JOSEPH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 1724 OF 2026 | CRIME NO.1105/2020



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri. Francis Assisi
For the Respondents: Sri.K.A. Noushad, SR. PP

The court emphasizes the importance of considering the gravity of the alleged crime and the associated circumstances when deciding bail applications under the BNSS.

Headnote:The judgment discusses the application for bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, related to serious allegations under the NDPS Act involving possession of narcotics. The court concludes that the applicant's claims of innocence are unsubstantiated, noting the gravity of the crime and the lack of new circumstances warranting bail. The court ultimately dismisses the bail application.

Table of Content
1. allegations of possession of narcotics. (Para 2 , 3)
2. arguments for and against bail application. (Para 5)
3. court's observations on gravity of the case. (Para 6)

ORDER

This fourth 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.5 in Crime No.1105/2020 of Ettumanoor Police Station, 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 ‘the NDPS Act’).

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that in pursuance of a conspiracy among all the accused, three accused were found possessing 3.5 kg of ganja in an unoccupied house bearing No.134/II of Athirampuzha Grama Panchayat in Kottayam District. Thus, the applicant has committed the above offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Francis Assisi, 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 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 12.09.2025 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. There is no change in circumstances. It is submitted that the trial has already been scheduled for the month of April. Considering the nature of the crime, the gravity of the offence, the complicity of the applicant in it, and the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I am of the view that the applicant cannot be released on bail at this stage.

The bail application, accordingly, is dismissed.

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