Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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             

 

Latest Legal News