Contradictions In Eyewitness Accounts And Suppression Of Crucial Evidence Weaken The Prosecution's Case: Telangana High Court High Court of Sikkim Sets Aside Trial Court’s Decision on Maintainability of Suit: Preliminary Issues Must Be Purely of Law Courts Must Focus on Substance Over Procedure, Says High Court Writ Petitions Against Civil Court Orders Must Be Under Article 227: Patna High Court Reiterates Jurisdictional Boundaries Kerala High Court Upholds Eviction, Rejects Sub-Tenant's Kudikidappu Claim Contractual Employment Does Not Confer Right to Regularization: Jharkhand High Court Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act for Past Domestic Violence: Bombay High Court Tenants Cannot Prescribe How Landlords Utilize Their Property: Delhi High Court Validates Eviction Labour Commissioner to Decide Petitioner’s Date of Birth Claim within Three Months, Ensuring Proper Verification and Consideration of Evidence: Uttarakhand High Court Concealment of Health Condition and False Allegations Amount to Cruelty: Gujarat High Court Upholds Divorce Decree Possession Implies Constructive Notice: Duty to Inquire Rests on Subsequent Purchasers: Supreme Court Clarifies Bona Fide Purchase Standards Judicial Proceedings Cannot Be Instituted After Four Years: MP High Court in Quashing FIR Against Retired Engineer Orissa High Court Invalidates Lecturer Recruitment Advertisements for Non-Compliance with UGC Standards Public Interest Jurisdiction Not a Substitute for Private Litigation: Karnataka High Court Declines PIL Cognizance under Section 188 IPC is illegal without a public servant’s complaint:Kerala High Court Juvenile Justice Act Prevails Over Recruitment Rules: Madras High Court Rules Juvenile Records Cannot Bar Employment in Police Services" Calcutta High Court Quashes MR Distributorship Selection Due to Irregularities in Godown Compliance and Selection Process Once the driver has established the validity of his license, the insurer cannot escape liability without conclusive proof to the contrary: J&K HC Belated Claims Cannot Be Entertained: Kerala High Court Overturns CAT Decision on Date of Birth Correction DNA Tests Cannot Supersede Established Legal Presumptions: Himachal Pradesh HC Section 26E of SARFAESI Act Overrides VAT Act: Secured Creditor's Charge Has Priority Over State's Tax Dues: Gujrat High Court High Court of Delhi Clarifies Jurisdiction in Commercial Dispute: 'Procedural Efficiency Must Be Upheld Power Under Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Exercised Without Prima Facie Case Beyond Contradictions: Supreme Court Motive Alone Insufficient for Conviction Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Supreme Court Ensures Equal Financial Benefits for All High Court Judges: Discrimination Based on Recruitment Source Struck Down Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Four Accused: Cites Contradictory Dying Declarations and Lack of Independent Evidence in Murder Case Evidence Corroborates Violent Robbery and Recovery of Stolen Articles: Calcutta High Court Upholds Conviction in Burrabazar Dacoity Case Failure to Implead Contesting Candidates is Fatal; Fundamental Defect Cannot Be Cured: Bombay High Court Dismisses Election Petition Magistrate Not Functus Officio Post-Final Order in Maintenance Cases: Allahabad High Court Substantial Questions of Law a Must in Second Appeals, Reiterates Andhra Pradesh High Court Inconsistencies and Procedural Lapses: Allahabad High Court Acquits Four in Neeta Singh Murder Case

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

Similar News