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

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