Or. 6 Rule 17 CPC | A Suit Cannot be Converted into a Fresh Litigation – Amendment Cannot Introduce a New Cause of Action: Andhra Pradesh High Court Government Cannot Withhold Retirement Without Formal Rejection Before Notice Period Expires: Delhi High Court Drug Offences Threaten Society, Courts Must Show Zero Tolerance : Meghalaya High Court Refuses Bail Under Section 37 NDPS Act Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to Serious Allegations, Unless Justified by Law: Kerala High Court When Law Prescribes a Limitation, Courts Cannot Ignore It: Supreme Court Quashes Time-Barred Prosecution Under Drugs and Cosmetics Act Issuing Notices to a Non-Existent Entity is a Substantive Illegality, Not a Mere Procedural Lapse: Bombay High Court Quashes Income Tax Reassessment Notices Termination Without Verifying Evidence is Legally Unsustainable: Allahabad High Court Reinstates Government Counsel Luxury for One Cannot Mean Struggle for the Other - Husband’s True Income Cannot Be Suppressed to Deny Fair Maintenance: Calcutta High Court Penalty Proceedings Must Be Initiated and Concluded Within The Prescribed Timeline Under Section 275(1)(C): Karnataka High Court Upholds ITAT Order" Landlord Entitled to Recovery of Possession, Arrears of Rent, and Damages for Unauthorized Occupation: Madras High Court Supreme Court Slams Punjab and Haryana High Court for Illegally Reversing Acquittal in Murder Case, Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation for Wrongful Conviction Mere Absence of Wholesale License Does Not Make a Transaction Unlawful:  Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against INOX Air Products Stigmatic Dismissal Without Inquiry Violates Fair Process, Rules High Court in Employment Case Recruiting Authorities Have Discretion to Fix Cut-Off Marks – No Arbitrariness Found: Orissa High Court Charge-Sheet Is Not a Punishment, Courts Should Not Interfere: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Writ Against Departmental Inquiry Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Identifiable Property or Evidence of Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Fairness Demands Compensation Under the 2013 Act; Bureaucratic Delays Cannot Defeat Justice: Supreme Court Competition Commission Must Issue Notice to Both Parties in a Combination Approval: Supreme Court Physical Possession and Settled Possession Are Prerequisites for Section 6 Relief: Delhi High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Decision Granting Possession Hyper-Technical Approach Must Be Avoided in Pre-Trial Amendments: Punjab & Haryana High Court FIR Lodged After Restitution of Conjugal Rights Suit Appears Retaliatory: Calcutta High Court Quashes Domestic Violence Case Two-Year Immunity from No-Confidence Motion Applies to Every Elected Sarpanch, Not Just the First in Office: Bombay High Court Enforcing The Terms Of  Agreement Does Not Amount To Contempt Of Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Contempt Order Against Power Company Officers Consent of a minor is immaterial under law: Allahabad High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Man Accused of Enticing Minor Sister-in-Law and Dowry Harassment False Promise of Marriage Does Not Automatically Amount to Rape: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 376 IPC Dowry Harassment Cannot Be Ignored, But Justice Must Be Fair: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 498A IPC, Modifies Sentence to Time Served with Compensation of ₹3 Lakh Mere Presence in a Crime Scene Insufficient to Prove Common Intention – Presence Not Automatically Establish Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Supreme Court: Compensation Must Ensure Financial Stability—Not Be Subject to Arbitrary Reductions: Supreme Court Slams Arbitrary Reduction of Motor Accident Compensation by High Court

Kerala High Court Denies Bail in Largest Heroin Seizure Case, Stresses Stringent NDPS Act Conditions

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Kerala High Court has denied bail to two accused in a high-profile heroin seizure case involving the largest recovery of the drug in the country. The court's decision, delivered by Justice A. Badharudeen, underscored the stringent requirements for bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, highlighting the significant risk of reoffending if the accused were released.

The case revolves around the seizure of 217.525 kg of heroin from two boats, "Little Jesus" and "Prince," intercepted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on May 18, 2022. The boats, registered in Tamil Nadu, were found near Kochi, leading to the arrest of multiple individuals, including the petitioners, S. John Bosco and Sobhan S. The accused claimed they were merely fishermen unaware of the contraband on board, while the prosecution presented evidence suggesting their active involvement in the drug trafficking operation.

Justice A. Badharudeen noted that the prosecution had presented substantial evidence indicating the accused's involvement in the crime. "The presence of very few fishes in the boats, coupled with the seizure of such a large quantity of heroin, points to a clear involvement in the trafficking operation," the court observed. The defense's argument that the accused were innocent fishermen was not convincing given the circumstances and the evidence presented.

The court emphasized the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which requires the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offense and that they are unlikely to commit any offense while on bail. Justice Badharudeen stated, "In light of the substantial evidence against the accused and the seriousness of the charges, this court cannot satisfy the conditions necessary for granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act."

The judgment extensively discussed the principles of granting bail under the NDPS Act, reiterating the Supreme Court's interpretation of "reasonable grounds" in such cases. The court highlighted that reasonable grounds must be more than prima facie and should suggest a substantial probability of the accused's innocence. "The materials available on record, including the seizure of a significant quantity of heroin and the role of the accused in transporting the contraband, fail to meet this threshold," the court concluded.

Justice Badharudeen remarked, "The sheer quantity of heroin seized and the specific circumstances of the case make it clear that the accused's release on bail would not be in the interest of justice. The conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be strictly adhered to, especially in cases involving such severe offenses."

The High Court's decision to deny bail reinforces the rigorous standards set under the NDPS Act for offenses involving large quantities of narcotics. By upholding these standards, the judgment aims to deter drug trafficking and ensure that those involved in such serious crimes are not granted leniency through bail. This ruling is expected to have a significant impact on future cases, emphasizing the judiciary's commitment to combating the narcotics trade.

 

Date of Decision: June 6, 2024

John Bosco and Others VS Union of India and Others

Similar News