MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Kerala Court Emphasizes Intermediate Quantity And Absence Of Risk Of Absconding In Granting Bail To Accused In MDMA Possession Case.

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court granted bail to Sanal, the sole accused in Crime No. 273/2024 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The decision, rendered by Justice Mohammed Nias C.P., hinged on the quantity of the seized substance, the lack of prior criminal record, and the absence of any substantial risk of the accused absconding if released.

The case involves Sanal, a 37-year-old resident of Aluva, Ernakulam, who was apprehended by the police on 30th March 2024 while patrolling near a scrap shop on Nelson Mandela Road. The police, acting on suspicion, searched Sanal and discovered 8.25 grams of MDMA in his possession. He was subsequently arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner, represented by a legal team including Advocates Francis Assisi and Ajeesh S. Brite, sought bail on the grounds of false implication and undue detention.

Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. noted that the substance found constituted an intermediate quantity under the NDPS Act. He remarked, "The petitioner's prolonged custody since 30.3.2024, coupled with the absence of prior criminal antecedents, justifies consideration for bail."

The court addressed concerns regarding the potential flight risk posed by the accused. "There is no apprehension raised by the prosecution that if released on bail, the petitioner is likely to abscond," stated Justice Nias. This lack of prosecutorial concern significantly influenced the court's decision to grant bail.

The court's decision was underpinned by principles balancing the severity of the charge against the personal liberty of the accused. Justice Nias emphasized the importance of safeguarding individual freedoms while ensuring that justice is served. "Considering the intermediate quantity involved and the petitioner's clear criminal record, continued detention is unnecessary," he asserted.

The bail was granted under stringent conditions to ensure compliance and prevent any interference with the ongoing investigation. The conditions included:

Execution of a bond for Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties.

Mandatory weekly reporting to the investigating officer.

Prohibition against tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

Restriction on involvement in any criminal activities while on bail.

Justice Nias highlighted the legal rationale for granting bail, noting, "The petitioner's incarceration without substantial evidence of further criminal intent or risk of absconding undermines the principle of personal liberty."

The Kerala High Court's decision to grant bail in this NDPS case underscores a nuanced approach towards balancing legal enforcement with individual rights. By factoring in the intermediate quantity of the substance and the petitioner's lack of a criminal background, the judgment reflects a judicious application of the law. This ruling is likely to influence similar cases, emphasizing the judiciary's role in protecting personal freedoms while upholding legal mandates.

Date of Decision: 14th May 2024

SANAL  VS STATE OF KERALA

Latest Legal News