Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Statutory Bail Under Section 167(2) CrPC | statutory bail is an 'indefeasible right' under Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act: Kerala High Court

13 September 2024 4:16 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


On September 11, 2024, the Kerala High Court, under the stewardship of Justice C.S. Dias, delivered a significant judgment in Bail Application No. 6391 of 2024. The case pertained to an alleged offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, with the petitioner being charged with possession of methamphetamine. The court granted statutory bail to the petitioner, underscoring his right to bail as a consequence of the delayed filing of the investigation report.

The petitioner, Shamseer K., was arrested on July 8, 2024, in connection with Crime No. 883/2024 of the Manjeri Police Station, Malappuram, Kerala. He, along with a co-accused, was found in possession of 37.080 grams of methamphetamine, which is classified as an intermediate quantity under the NDPS Act. The petitioner had been in judicial custody since his arrest.

The prosecution initially charged the accused under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act for possessing what was initially believed to be MDMA. However, a chemical analysis report submitted by the Regional Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory, Kozhikode, on September 5, 2024, revealed that the substance in question was methamphetamine and not MDMA.

The core legal issue revolved around whether the petitioner was entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), as read with Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. Statutory bail is granted if the investigating agency fails to submit a charge sheet within the prescribed time limits—90 days in cases involving intermediate quantities of contraband.

The petitioner argued that the investigation had not been completed within the stipulated time, entitling him to statutory bail. The petitioner further claimed that the substance involved was of intermediate quantity, thus reducing the maximum punishment to 10 years.

Justice C.S. Dias, in his judgment, noted that since the chemical analysis confirmed the substance as methamphetamine, the quantity involved was intermediate. Under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, read with Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, the court determined that the investigation was incomplete and the final report had not been filed, making the petitioner eligible for statutory bail.

The court reiterated that the "indefeasible right" to statutory bail arises when the investigation is not completed within the time prescribed under law. Citing landmark rulings from the Supreme Court, including Sanjay Dutt v. State through C.B.I. and Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, Justice Dias emphasized the legal right of the accused to be released on bail if the investigating authorities fail to complete their work in the stipulated period.

Justice Dias granted bail to the petitioner, imposing stringent conditions to ensure compliance. The petitioner was directed to execute a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties and report to the Investigating Officer regularly until the trial's conclusion. The court also set conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or committing further offences while on bail.

The decision underscores the importance of procedural safeguards in narcotics cases, particularly concerning the right to statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC when the investigation remains incomplete.

Date of Decision: September 11, 2024

Shamseer K. v. State of Kerala

Latest Legal News