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

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