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 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 When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

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

Latest Legal News