Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

High Court of Kerala Upholds Stringency of NDPS Act in Bail Denial: No Satisfactory Dilution of Section 37 Rigour – Justice C.S. Dias

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Kerala, presided over by the Honourable Mr. Justice C.S. Dias, delivered a pivotal judgment today in the bail applications (Nos. 9056, 9082, and 9418 of 2023) concerning the alleged involvement in a narcotics case registered under Crime No.1102/2023 at the Karunagappally Police Station, Kollam.

In a decisive interpretation of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), Justice Dias reinforced the stringent conditions for granting bail under Section 37 of the Act. The judgment centered on the applications filed by three accused, Ajith, Vishnu, and Samuel, in connection with the seizure of 728.42 grams of MDMA.

Highlighting the legal principles, Justice Dias remarked, "Considering the gravity, nature, and seriousness of the accusation levelled against the petitioners, the potential severity of the punishment that can be imposed on them, in the event of them being found guilty, I am at this stage not satisfied that the petitioners have diluted the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act." This statement reflects the court's stance on the non-dilution of the strict bail provisions under the NDPS Act.

The court thoroughly reviewed the arguments presented by the petitioners' counsel, M.R. Sasith, who argued for their innocence and lack of direct involvement in the crime. However, the Public Prosecutors, Smt. Neema TV and Smt. Seetha S, countered these claims, presenting substantial evidence of financial transactions and communications linking the petitioners to the narcotics operation.

Referencing key Supreme Court decisions, including Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari [(2007) 7 SCC 798] and State of Kerala v. Rajesh [(2020) 12 SCC 122], Justice Dias emphasized the need for 'reasonable grounds' to believe in the non-guilt of the accused and their unlikely engagement in offences while on bail, as prerequisites for bail consideration under the NDPS Act.

Kerala Court found the bail applications of the petitioners lacking in merit and subsequently dismissed them, upholding the rigorous standards of the NDPS Act in narcotics-related offences. This judgment sets a precedent in the interpretation and application of the NDPS Act, particularly concerning bail provisions in cases of serious narcotics offences.

Date of Decision: 11th January 2024

AJITH  VS STATE OF KERALA             

 

Similar News