Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Successive FIRs Cannot Be Used to Thwart Bail: Supreme Court Invokes Article 32 to Protect Personal Liberty Supreme Court Enforces Contractual Bar Against Interest in Government Contracts Ex Parte Decree Not a Blank Cheque - Merely Because Defendant Absent, Plaintiff’s Case Not Presumed True: Madras High Court Mandatory Injunction Cannot Be Kept in Cold Storage: Supreme Court Enforces Strict Three-Year Limitation for Execution Senior Citizens Act Is for Maintenance, Not a Shortcut to Eviction: Calcutta High Court Restrains Tribunal’s Overreach Statement ‘Counsel Says’ Is Not a Binding Undertaking Without Client’s Specific Authorization: Allahabad High Court Declines to Initiate Contempt Rigours of Section 43-D(5) Melt Down When Liberty Is at Stake: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in UAPA Case After 2.5 Years’ Custody Vakalatnama Is Not a Mere Form – Attestation Is a Legal Safeguard: Andhra Pradesh High Court Cautions Advocates and Registry on Procedural Sanctity Right to Be Considered for Promotion Is Fundamental – Employer’s Unfairness Cannot Defeat It: : Gujarat High Court Panchayat Statement Implicating Others Is Not a Confession Proper: J&K High Court Rejects Extra-Judicial Confession in Murder Appeal Contempt Lies Only on ‘Wilful and Deliberate Disobedience’ – Fresh KASP Appointments Not Replacement of Daily Wage Workers: Kerala High Court 498A Cannot Become a Dragnet for Entire Family: Orissa High Court Shields Distant In-Laws but Sends Husband to Trial

Kerala High Court Grants Bail to First-Time Offender Arrested with Ganja - Lengthy Custody and Delayed Trial.

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment delivered on October 19, 2023, the High Court of Kerala granted bail to a first-time offender accused of violating the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The petitioner, identified as Satheesan, had been in custody since October 11, 2022, following allegations of transporting contraband.

The Court's decision hinged on several critical observations, notably the prolonged detention of the accused, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the delay in bringing the case to trial. The judgment cited these factors to justify granting bail to the petitioner.

In the judgment, Justice A. Badharudeen noted, "Epitomizing the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions herein above discussed, the following parameters clubbed together can be considered to dilute the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act: (1) the accused should not have any criminal antecedents. (2) the accused has been in custody for a long time, at least a period more than one year (say for eg. about fourteen months in the instant case). (3) the impossibility of trial within a reasonable time (for this purpose, the Court granting bail should ensure that trial could not be completed at least within a period of six months). Yet another aspect to be added in the list, in my view, is the quantity of the contraband. That is to say, when the quantity of contraband is something just above the intermediate quantity and the same is not a huge or sizable quantity, the same also can be considered after satisfying the above 3 parameters stated herein above, for diluting the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act."

Satheesan's counsel had argued that his client's detention had exceeded one year, and the trial had not progressed within six months. The petitioner had also raised concerns about the legality of the search conducted between sunset and sunrise, emphasizing the need for the prosecution to show compliance with the 2nd proviso to Section 42 of the NDPS Act.

In response to these arguments, the Court granted bail to Satheesan, imposing specific conditions, including a bond of Rs. 50,000 and two solvent sureties. The petitioner is also required to cooperate with the trial, not intimidate witnesses, and surrender his passport if applicable.

The judgment cited the ratio in Fasil v. State of Kerala [2023 (3) KHC 212], which was not disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor, as it aligned with the circumstances of this case. The decision underscores the importance of considering individual circumstances and the length of detention when evaluating bail applications, especially in NDPS cases.

Date of Decision: 19 October 2023

SATHEESAN  vs STATE OF KERALA   

Latest Legal News