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" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

No Bail for Possession of Commercial Quantity of Contraband: Kerala High Court Applies Stringent Measures Under NDPS Act

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Kerala High Court, presided over by Mr. Justice C.S. Dias, denied bail to two accused in a significant narcotics case involving possession of a commercial quantity of Methamphetamine. The bail applications, numbered 8777 of 2023 and 5877 of 2023, were filed by Sirajudheen and Riyas Puthusseri, the 2nd and 3rd accused, respectively, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The case pivoted on accusations of possession of 499.28 grams of Methamphetamine. Originally identified as MDMA, the seized substance turned out to be Methamphetamine upon laboratory analysis. This quantity falls under the category of 'commercial quantity' as per the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

Defence counsel argued that the accused were falsely implicated, highlighting alleged procedural violations in the seizure, storage, and analysis of the contraband. They pointed to the delay in forwarding the samples to the laboratory as a significant flaw, potentially prejudicing the accused.

The prosecution, however, maintained that the seizure was compliant with NDPS Act requirements. Citing previous Supreme Court and High Court judgments, they argued that the length of detention is irrelevant in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband under the NDPS Act.

In its judicial analysis, the High Court observed that the determination of procedural compliance and resultant prejudice should be assessed at trial. The Court's focus was on Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given the commercial quantity involved. This section imposes stringent conditions on bail in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband.

Ultimately, the Court denied bail, stating, "After comprehending the nature, seriousness, and gravity of the accusations...I do not find any reasonable ground to hold that the petitioners have not committed the offences alleged against them." The decision was anchored on the nature of the offence, the quantity of contraband, and the stringent parameters under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Court also emphasized that its observations were solely for bail consideration and should not influence the trial court's decision.

Date of Decision: 1st March 2024

Sirajudheen & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala

Latest Legal News