POCSO Presumption Is Not a Dead Letter, But ‘Sterling Witness’ Test Still Governs Conviction: Bombay High Court High Courts Cannot Routinely Entertain Contempt Petitions Beyond One Year: Madras High Court Declines Contempt Plea Filed After Four Years Courts Cannot Reject Suit by Weighing Evidence at Threshold: Delhi High Court Restores Discrimination Suit by Indian Staff Against Italian Embassy Improvised Testimonies and Dubious Recovery Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Allahabad High Court Acquits Two In Murder Case Sale with Repurchase Condition is Not a Mortgage: Bombay High Court Reverses Redemption Decree After 27-Year Delay Second Transfer Application on Same Grounds is Not Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court Clarifies Legal Position under Section 24 CPC Custodial Interrogation Is Not Punitive — Arrest Cannot Be Used as a Tool to Humiliate in Corporate Offence Allegations: Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Partnership Act | Eviction Suit by Unregistered Firm Maintainable if Based on Statutory Right: Madhya Pradesh High Court Reasonable Grounds Under Section 37 of NDPS Act Cannot Be Equated with Proof; They Must Reflect More Than Suspicion, But Less Than Conviction: J&K HC Apprehension to Life Is a Just Ground for Transfer When Roots Lie in History of Ideological Violence: Bombay High Court Transfers Defamation Suits Against Hamid Dabholkar, Nikhil Wagle From Goa to Maharashtra Violation of Income Tax Law Doesn’t Void Cheque Bounce Offence: Supreme Court Overrules Kerala HC, Says Section 138 NI Act Stands Independent Overstaying Licensee Cannot Evade Double Damages by Legal Technicalities: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Is Not a Stamp of Truth: Punjab & Haryana High Court Trademark Law Must Protect Reputation, Not Reward Delay Tactics: Bombay High Court Grants Injunction to FedEx Against Dishonest Use of Its Well-Known Mark Commercial Dispute Need Not Wait for a Written Contract: Delhi High Court Upholds Rs.6 Lakh Decree in Rent Recovery Suit Against Storage Defaulter Limitation Begins From Refusal, Not Date of Agreement—Especially When Title Was Under Litigation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sale by Karta of Ancestral Property Without Legal Necessity Is Voidable, Not Void: Madras High Court Dismisses Sons’ Appeal Demand for Gold at 'Chhoochhak' Ceremony Not Dowry – Demand Must Connected With Marriage: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claims Cannot Be Decided on Sympathy – Involvement of Offending Vehicle Must Be Proved: Supreme Court Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Ladder for Career Advancement – It Ends Once Exercised: Supreme Court In Absence of Minimum Fee, Compounding by Revenue Officials Is Not Criminal Misconduct: Kerala High Court Clarifies Power, Quashes FIR Against Two Accused If You’re in Service on 31st March, You Get the Revised Pay: Supreme Court Affirms Right to 2017 Pay Revision for March 2016 Retirees Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court

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