-
by Admin
17 December 2025 10:10 AM
Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention Without Recovery of Contraband Violates Article 21 of the Constitution - Kerala High Court granted bail to Kiran T., the third accused in Crime No. 235/2024 of Meenangadi Police Station, Wayanad, under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish a direct link between the accused and the contraband, and that continued incarceration without substantive evidence violated the principles of personal liberty.
Ruling in favor of the accused, the Court observed, "Bail is the rule, and jail is the exception. When the prosecution cannot establish possession or direct involvement in the contraband trade, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be applied cautiously."
The prosecution alleged that on April 6, 2024, at 9:30 AM, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were caught in possession of 349 grams of MDMA, and that the contraband was intended for the third accused, Kiran T. The only evidence against him was an alleged money transfer of ₹2,60,000 to the second accused, which the prosecution claimed was linked to a drug transaction. The defense countered that no contraband was recovered from Kiran T., and the prosecution had failed to prove that the alleged money transfer was connected to narcotics.
"Monetary Transactions Alone Do Not Establish Guilt—Prosecution Must Prove Direct Involvement"
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shince Babu v. State of Kerala (2024 KHC OnLine 8084), which held that in the absence of contraband recovery, bail should be granted unless strong circumstantial evidence exists. The Court noted, "When no contraband is seized from the accused, the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be relaxed."
The Court also cited Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024 KHC 6431), emphasizing that mere seriousness of the allegations is not a ground for denying bail. The judgment reiterated, "Allegations alone cannot justify indefinite incarceration. Bail applications must be decided based on legal principles, not public sentiment."
"Indefinite Custody Without Trial Is Punitive—Courts Must Balance Law Enforcement With Liberty"
The Court, referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 16 SCALE 870), stressed that pre-trial detention should not be used as a substitute for punishment. The judgment highlighted, "The right to a fair trial includes the right to seek bail. When the investigation is complete and the trial remains uncertain, continued detention is unjust."
The Court observed that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had already been granted bail due to the prosecution’s failure to file a chargesheet within the statutory period, and ruled, "When co-accused are released on default bail, denying bail to another accused on weaker evidence is arbitrary and unjustified."
"Bail Granted—Liberty Cannot Be Curtailed Indefinitely Without Proof"
Granting bail to Kiran T., the Court ruled, "Liberty cannot be curtailed indefinitely without substantive proof of guilt. The prosecution must prove its case at trial, not in a bail hearing." The Court directed that he must appear before the Investigating Officer as required, refrain from influencing witnesses, and not leave the country without permission.
Concluding its judgment, the Court reaffirmed the constitutional principle that pre-trial detention must not become punitive, ruling, "The presumption of innocence is the foundation of criminal jurisprudence. When the prosecution fails to establish direct involvement, continued incarceration becomes unjust."
The Kerala High Court’s judgment reinforces fundamental legal principles, ensuring that accused persons are not kept in custody indefinitely based on mere allegations. The ruling sends a clear message that bail cannot be denied solely on the severity of charges but must be decided on evidence, procedural fairness, and constitutional principles.
Date of Decision: 17 March 2025
