Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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