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) 31040

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Kauser Edappagath, J
Anil Kumar B – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 2738 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M. Rajesh
For the Respondents: Sreeja V.

Under S. 37 of the NDPS Act, bail for commercial quantities of contraband is prohibited unless the court has reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further crimes, which is further constrained by the accused's criminal antecedents and lack of changed circumstances.

Headnote:The petitioner sought regular bail under S. 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding a case under S. 20(b)(ii)

(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, involving the alleged possession of 22.37 kg of Ganja. The court considered the serious nature of the offence and the commercial quantity of contraband involved. It observed that the stringent requirements of S. 37 of the NDPS Act were not satisfied, citing the absence of reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and the presence of criminal antecedents. The primary issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for bail under S. 37 of the NDPS Act, notwithstanding the claim of innocence. The court reasoned that in cases involving commercial quantities, bail is restricted unless there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is innocent and unlikely to commit further offences, noting that the petitioner had prior criminal involvement and no change in circumstances since the previous bail refusal. The court concluded by dismissing the bail application due to the gravity of the offence and the failure of the applicant to satisfy the statutory rigour of the NDPS Act.

Table of Content
1. nature of the charge regarding possession of commercial quantity under the ndps act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. application of the rigour of s. 37 of the ndps act for bail eligibility. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. weight of criminal antecedents and absence of changed circumstances in refusing bail. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)

ORDER

This second 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 in Crime No.

2728/2025 of the Kollam East Police Station, Kollam District. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, NDPS Act).

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant was found in possession of 22.37 kg of Ganja on 18/10/2025 at 6.50 a.m., in contravention of the NDPS Act and Rules and thereby committed the offence.

4. I have heard Sri.M. Rajesh, the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt.Sreeja V., 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 18.10.2025. 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. Since the quantity involved is commercial, the jurisdiction of this Court to grant bail is circumscribed by the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Bail can be granted in a case where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

7. The contraband was seized from the possession of the applicant. Moreover, the applicant has criminal antecedents.

8. Having considered the submissions and after having gone through the materials on record, I am afraid that there are no substantial or probable causes for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the offences charged. The applicant has not been able to point out the existence of any such facts or circumstances as are sufficient to justify recording a finding that he is not guilty of the offences charged.

9. The first bail application was dismissed by this Court, holding that the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act was attracted. There is no change in circumstances. Moreover, the applicant has criminal antecedents and is involved in three other crimes of a similar nature.

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