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

2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 14369

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J
JABIR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./1929/2018



Advocates:
SRI.R.SREEHARI, SRI.SACHIN VYAS

Possession of a small quantity of a narcotic does not warrant denial of bail if the substance is not as alleged.

Headnote:

Bail - Narcotic Drugs - NDPS Act - Sections 8(c), 22(c), 29 - The court determined that the substance found was Methamphetamine, not LSD, and the quantity was small, warranting bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant was arrested for alleged possession of LSD but claimed innocence. A chemical analysis report confirmed the seized substance was Methamphetamine, weighing 1.060 grams.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that since the substance was Methamphetamine and within the prescribed 'small quantity', the bail application should be allowed.

Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant was guilty of possessing LSD as alleged or if the actual substance seized warranted a different legal treatment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the identification of the substance and its quantity were pivotal in determining the eligibility for bail.

Final Decision: The application for bail was granted, subject to certain conditions.

ORDER

1. This application is filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. The applicant is the 1st accused in Crime No.321 of 2018 of the Ernakulam Central Police Station, registered under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

3. On 2.2.2018 at 3.20 p.m., the applicant along with two others were found engaged in a conversation at the KSRTC Bus Stand at Ernakulam. Based on discreet information, they were intercepted and a search was conducted. About 72 LSD stamps weighing 1.060 grams were seized from a note book kept by the applicant in his possession. After complying with the formalities, the accused were arrested and has been in custody since then.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent. A specific contention was advanced that the article seized from his possession was not LSD. This Court by order dated 9.4.2018 had given specific instructions to the learned Public Prosecutor to produce the report of Chemical Analysis.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor has made available the report of the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory, which reads as follows:

“Methamphetamine, a central stimulant was detected in the material contained in the packet marked as MS-1. Methamphetamine come under the purview of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. LSD (Lysergic acide diethyl amide) was not detected in the material contained in the packet marked as MS-1.”

6. In that view of the matter, the allegation that he was possessing LSD cannot be accepted. Methamphetamine is item No.159 in the table and the prescribed small quantity is 2 grams and commercial quantity is 50 grams. In the instant case, what has been seized from the possession of the applicant is 1.060 grams which comes within the category of 'small quantity'. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the applicant can now be enlarged on bail.

7. In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

1). The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed.

2). The applicant shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.

3). The applicant shall not commit any offence while he is on bail.

4). The applicant shall surrender his passport before the court below or if he does not have one, he shall file an affidavit to that effect within five days of his release. Application for release of the passport, if any, shall be considered by the Trial court at the appropriate stage.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

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