MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |    

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