Kerala High Court
Muhammed Kaiz vs State Of Kerala on 8 August, 2024
2024:KER:60316
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 5385 OF 2024
CRIME NO.42/2023 OF KANJIRAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
MUHAMMED KAIZ
AGED 21 YEARS
ILLATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, POOTHAKUZHY,
KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686507
BY ADVS.
SHYAM KUMAR M.P
VIVEK.P.K
MOHAMED SHAREEF PARIYARATH
GADHA.S
SANDEEP SUKUMARAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
SRI. M P PRASANTH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:60316
BAIL APPL. NO. 5385 OF 2024
2
ORDER
Dated this the 8th day of August, 2024 This is the second application for regular bail filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The earlier bail application filed by the petitioner vide B.A.No.9013/2023 was dismissed on 22.02.2024 and the order is as under:
"This is an application for regular bail, filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, by the petitioner, who is the 1st accused in Crime No.42/2023 of Kanjirappally Police Station, Kottayam, where the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 22(c) & 20(b)(II)(A) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psycotropics Substances Act (`NDPS Act' for short).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary and report of the Investigating Officer, placed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The prosecution case, initially, at the time of preparing the search list was that the 1st accused 2024:KER:60316 BAIL APPL. NO. 5385 OF 2024 3 was found in possession of 300 ml of LSD stamp and 1 gram of Hashish at 8.10 p.m on 08.01.2023 and later when the contraband was weighed before the Magistrate, it was found that the LSD stamps recovered from the 1staccused (5 in numbers) would weigh 0.11 gram and the Hashis would come to 0.26 gram. Thereafter the 2nd accused was also arrested on the allegation that he had sold the contraband to the 1st accused herein.
4. Initially the 2nd accused filed B.A.No.569/2023 and this Court dismissed the same as per order dated 28.02.2023 holding that commercial quantity of contraband was involved and, therefore, the petitioner/2nd accused could not be released on bail by diluting the rider under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Again the petitioner/2nd accused filed B.A.No.2130/2023 and this Court dismissed the same as per order dated 24.05.2023, holding the same view.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the 2nd accused was released by this Court on regular bail when he moved bail application for the third time. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner further that the contraband in this case when weighed in a carat weighing machine, it was found as 0.300 mg of LSD stamps and 0.1 gram of Hashish oil. Accordingly, it is submitted that when the same, if converted into grams, the same would come to a small 2024:KER:60316 BAIL APPL. NO. 5385 OF 2024 4 quantity.
6. Strongly repelling these contentions, the learned Public Prosecutor categorically argued, relying on the recitals in the case diary, that when the 1 st accused was arrested along with the contraband, the contraband was weighed in a balance made available, from a jewellery, and the weight of the LSD stamp was stated as 0.300 mg instead of 300 CT. But when the contraband was produced before the Magistrate, the same was weighed in the presence of Magistrate and it was found that the weight in gram in so far as LSD is concerned would come to 0.11 gram and the Hashis would come to 0.26 gram. Thus this fact was reported to the court and after investigation final report also was laid alleging that accused Nos.1 and 2 committed the above offences. Therefore, there is no reason to relax the rider under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the petitioner is not liable to be released on bail. It is also pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that in this case a very serious offence alleged to be committed where rider under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would apply and, therefore, the petitioner is not liable to be released on bial. He also placed a decision of the Apex Court reported in [2010 KHC 4631 : 2010(2) KLD 534 : 2010 (8) SCALE 594 : 2010 (4) KLT SN 11 : AIR 2010 SC 3594 : 2010 (9) SCC 85 : 2010 CriLJ 4715 : 2011 (99) AIC 161 : 2010 (3) SCC (Cri) 1139], Dehal Singh & anr.
2024:KER:60316 BAIL APPL. NO. 5385 OF 2024 5 v. State of Himachal Pradesh to contend that discrepancy in weights of samples does not cast any doubt on prosecution case. In the said decision the Apex Court held that it is common knowledge that weighing scale and weight kept in the grocery - shop are not of such standard which can weigh articles with great accuracy and therefore difference of 15 gms. in weight, in the facts and circumstances of this case, is not of much significance. Sample was taken by a common weighing scale and weight found in a grocery shop, whereas the weight in the laboratory recorded with precision scale. This would be evident from the fact that the weight of the sample recorded in the laboratory was 65.5606 gms. In this background, small difference in weight loses its significance, when one finds no infirmity in other part of the prosecution story.
7. Further in paragraph 12 after referring to the decision in [2008 KHC 5054 : 2008 (16) SCC 417 : 2008 (9) SCALE 681], Noor Aga v. State of Punjab & anr. the Apex Court observed that the diference in the weight at the time of taking samples and at the laboratory was considered material as in the said case the sample was taken by the Custom Officials at the Airport and the Court came to the conclusion that weight was taken from a precision scale. Further it is not only the discrepancy in the weight which led this Court to reject the case of the prosecution but had taken into 2024:KER:60316 BAIL APPL. NO. 5385 OF 2024 6 consideration several other discrepancies to come to the said conclusion. This shall be evident from paragraph 98 of the judgment, which reads as follows:
`98. We are not oblivious of the fact that a slight difference in the weight of the sample may not be held to be so crucial as to disregard the entire prosecution case as ordinarily an officer in a public place would not be carrying a good scale with him. Here, however, the scenario is different. The place of seizure was an airport. The officers carrying out the search and seizure were from the Cusoms Department. They must be having good scales with them as a marginal increase or decrease of quantity of imported articles whether contraband or otherwise may make a huge difference under the Customs Act."
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner is a first time offender, he deserves bail because the trial could not be completed within a period of 6 months since the petitioner has been in custody for the last 13 months. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on [2023 (3) KHC 212 : 2023 KHC OnLine 321], Fasil v. State of Kerala in support of this argument.
9. Paragraphs 129 and 130 of the decision reported in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab & anr. (supra) have been also pointed out by the learned counsel. In paragraph 130 the Apex Court held as under:
"We are not oblivious of the fact that a slight difference in the weight of the sample 2024:KER:60316 BAIL APPL. NO. 5385 OF 2024 7 may not be held to be so crucial as to disregard the entire prosecution case as ordinarily an officer in a public place would not be carrying a good scale with him. Here, however, the scenario is different. The place of seizure was an airport. The officers carrying out the search and seizure were from the Customs Department. They must be having good scales with them as a marginal increase or decrease of quantity of imported articles whether contraband or otherwise may make a huge difference under the Customs Act."
10. In Fasil v. State of Kerala (supra), this Court considered the rider under Section 37 and set out certain situations to dilute the rider under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act provides that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Section 37(2) of the Act makes it clear that the limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations on 2024:KER:60316 BAIL APPL. NO. 5385 OF 2024 8 granting of bail provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
11. In this connection, Section 436A of Cr.P.C also assumes significance and the same provides as under:
"Where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Code of an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the punishments under that law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on his personal bond with or without sureties;
Provided that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail instead of the personal bond with or without sureties;
Provided further that no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under that law."
12. In [2022 SCC OnLine 929], Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, dealing with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, a provision which is similar to Section 37(1)(b) of the Act, which also starts with a non-obstante clause, the Supreme Court has held as follows:
2024:KER:60316 BAIL APPL. NO. 5385 OF 2024 9 The provision in the form of Section 436A of the 1973 Code, as has now come into being is in recognition of the constitutional right of the accused regarding speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. For, it is a sanguine hope of every accused, who is in custody in particular, that he/she should be tried expeditiously - so as to uphold the tenets of speedy justice. If the trial cannot proceed even after the accused has undergone one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment provided by law, there is no reason to deny him this lesser relief of considering his prayer for release on bail or bond, as the case may be, with appropriate conditions, including to secure his/her presence during the trial .... For, it is the constitutional obligation of the State to ensure that trials are concluded expeditiously and at least within a reasonable time where strict bail provisions apply. If a person is detained for a period extending upto one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified by law and is still facing trial, it is nothing short of failure of the State in upholding the constitutional rights of the citizens, including person accused of an offence. Section 436A of the 1973 Code, is a wholesome beneficial provision, which is for effectuating the right of speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and which merely specifies the outer limits within which the trial is expected to be concluded, failing which, the 2024:KER:60316 BAIL APPL. NO. 5385 OF 2024 10 accused ought not to be detained further... If the Parliament/Legislature provides for stringent provision of no bail, unless the stringent conditions are fulfilled, it is the bounden duty of the State to ensure that such trials get precedence and are concluded within a reasonable time, at least before the acused undergoes detention for a period extending upto one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the concerned offence by law. In our opinion, therefore, Section 436A needs to be construed as a statutory bail provision and akin to Section 167 of the 1973 Code ... We must hold that Section 436A of the 1973 Code could be invoked by accused arrested for offence punishable under the 2002 Act, being a statutory bail."
Applying the above principles, the "twin conditions" in Section 37(1)(b) of the Act need not be satisfied, when the application for bail is filed under Section 436A of the Code.
In [2023 KHC 7096 : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109 : 2023 KHC OnLine 7096], Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has held that, prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the 2024:KER:60316 BAIL APPL. NO. 5385 OF 2024 11 Act. In this case, the accused was in jail for more than three and a half years.
13. However, in [2022 KHC 6720 :
2022 KHC OnLine 6720 : AIR 2022 SC 3444], Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, a three-Judge Bench of the Surpeme Court had held that the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act have to be satisfied for releasing the accused on bail. It was a case in which the accused had remained in custody for a period of one year and three months. The Supreme Court held that the length of the period of custody of the accused cannot be treated as persuasive ground for granting the relief of bail to the accused.
14. In [MANU/SC/1643/2022], Union of India v. Khalil Uddin, the High Court had directed release of the accused on bail after they had undergone custody to the tune of about a year. The Supreme Court held that, in the face of the mandate of Section 37 of the Act, the High Court could not and ought not to have released the accused on bail.
15. Tracing the verdicts as regards to grant of bail in cases involving commercial quantity, where grant of bail is interdicted, the following decisions are relevant:
2024:KER:60316 BAIL APPL. NO. 5385 OF 2024 12 Sr. Judgment Bench Date of Holding No. judgment
1. Gurpreet Singh v. Single Bench 05/02/2024 Accused has been in State (NCT Delhi) of Hon'ble custody for 2 years 8 2024 SCC OnLine Delhi HC months and only 2 out of 696 (Chawla, J.) 22 witnesses have been partially examined in trial.
Accused entitled to be released on bail on account of delay in trial and there being no likelihood of it concluding in the near future.
There was also an issue of non-compliance with sampling procedures under Section 52A.
2. Jaseer S.M. v. Single Bench 08/01/2024 Delay in completion of State of Kerala of the Hon'ble trial cannot be a reason to Bail Application Kerala HC release the applicant No. 7238/2923 (Dias, J.) accused on bail. There is no rule of thumb or principle of universal application laying down the time period within which trial is to commence and conclude.
Further, since the
Accused was at flight risk,
bail was declined.
3. Badsha SK v. Division Bench 13/09/2023 Accused released on bail
State of West of the Hon'ble since (1) they had been in
Bengal, SC (Roy, custody for over 2 years
SLP (Crl.) Mithal, JJ.) and 4 months (2)
9715/2023 although charges framed
in August 2023, none of
the prosecution witnesses
examined, hence trial yet
to commence (3) nature
of the contraband (100
bottles of cough syrup
containing codeine
phosphate) and (4) no
known criminal
antecedents against the
2024:KER:60316
BAIL APPL. NO. 5385 OF 2024
13
Sr. Judgment Bench Date of Holding
No. judgment
accused
4. Suraj v. state (NCT Single Bench 29/08/2023 Liberty enshrined in
of Delhi), of Hon'ble Article 21 would whittle
2023 SCC OnLine Delhi HC down the rigours of S. 37
Del 5323 (Gadela, J.) of NDPS particularly
when the accused has
been incarcerated for a
fairly long period.
[Accused spent 3 years 8
months in custody.]
5. Praveen Saini v. Single Bench 26/07/2023 Article 21 is given primacy
State of NCT of of Hon'ble and twin conditions of S.
Delhi, Bail Appln. Delhi HC 37 are relaxed. Bail is
2321 / 2022 (Gadela, J.) granted on the grounds
that accused had been in
custody for over 5 years,
and despite charges
framed four years ago,
only 4 out of 100
witnesses are examined.
Furthermore, co-accused
who was similarly
circumstanced and
simultaneously arrested
was granted bail.
6. Rabi Prakash v, Division Bench 13/07/2023 Prolonged incarceration
State of Odisha, of the Hon'ble militates against
2023 SCC OnLine SC (Kant, fundamental right
SC 1109 Datta, JJ.) guaranteed under Article
21, and thus conditional
liberty must override
statutory embargo
created under S. 37(1)(b)
(ii) of NDPS Act. [Facts
relied on: The Accused
who had spent more than
three years in custody
and has no criminal
antecedents. Trial has
commenced but only 1
out of 19 witnesses
examined]
7. Fasil & Anr. v. Single Bench 13/04/2023 S. 37 of NDPS Act can be
2024:KER:60316
BAIL APPL. NO. 5385 OF 2024
14
Sr. Judgment Bench Date of Holding
No. judgment
State of Kerala of the Hon'ble diluted if (i) accused has
Kerala HC no criminal antecedents
(Badharudeen, (ii) accused has been in
J.) custody for a long time, at
least more than a year (iii)
there is impossibility of
trial within a reasonable
time (six months)
8. Mohd. Muslim v. Division Bench 28/02/2023 While granting bail, the
State (NCT Delhi), of Hon'ble SC court would look at the
2023 SCC OnLine (Bhat, Datta, material in a broad
SC 352 JJ.) manner and reasonably
see whether the
accused's guilt may be
proved. Grant of bail on
the ground of undue delay
cannot be said to be
fettered by S. 37 of NDPS
Act given the imperative
of Section 436A of the
Code which is applicable
to offences under NDPS
Act too. The accused who
had spent 7 years and 4
months in custody was
released on bail.
9. Dheeraj Kumar Division Bench 25/01/2023 Though commercial
Shukla v. State of of Hon'ble SC quantity of contraband
UP, 2o23 SCC (Kant, was recovered, the
OnLine SC 918 Maheshwari, Accused had no criminal
JJ.) antecedents and had
spent two-and-a-half
years in custody. While
charges have been
framed, trial is yet to
commence. Hence, the
rigors of S. 37 could be
dispensed with.
10.Vijay Madanlal Constitution 22/07/2022 S. 436A of CrPC is a
Chaudhary v. UoI, Bench of the wholesome beneficial
2022 SCC OnLine Hon'ble SC provision which is
929 (Khanwilkar, effectuating the right of
Maheshwari, speedy trial guaranteed
2024:KER:60316
BAIL APPL. NO. 5385 OF 2024
15
Sr. Judgment Bench Date of Holding
No. judgment
Ravikumar, by Article 21, and which
JJ.) merely specifies the outer
limits within which the trial is expected to be concluded, failing which the accused ought not to be detained further.
The relief under 436A cannot be granted mechanically, and must be considered on a case-
to-case basis (especially since the proviso recognises that detention can continue longer than half of the period prescribed for reasons which are to be recorded in writing and by imposing terms and conditions on release).
Under the PMLA, there is no visible sign of these protections against police's power of search and arrest; it is in stark contrast with the constitutional protections given also the reverse presumption against innocence at stage of bail under Section 45 of the PMLA.
11.NCB v. Mohit Constitution 19/07/2022 Length of period of Aggarwal Bench of the custody or the fact that 2022 SCC OnLine Hon'ble SC charge-sheet has been SC 891 (Ramana, filed and trial has Murari, Kohli, commenced are not JJ.) considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for grant of bail u/s. 37. Reasonable 2024:KER:60316 BAIL APPL. NO. 5385 OF 2024 16 Sr. Judgment Bench Date of Holding No. judgment grounds mean credible and plausible grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences charged with.
The court must also be satisfied that the accused is unlikely to commit the offence while on bail.
12.Union of India v. Division Bench 23/01/2009 While granting bail, the Rattan Mallik of Hon'ble SC twin conditions of S. 37 (2009) 2 SCC 624 (Jain, Lodha, have to be mandatorily JJ.) satisfied. The term 'reasonable grounds' means more than prima facie grounds and connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence he is charged with. The Court is not called upon to record a finding of 'not guilty' but see whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty.
13.Intelligence Officer, Division Bench 02/02/2001 Section 37 of the NDPS Narcotics Control of Hon'ble SC Act cannot be given a Bureau v. Sambhu (Shah, Variva, liberal interpretation on Sonkar (2001) 2 JJ.) the justification that it SCC 562 affects the personal liberty of a citizen who is yet to be tried. Bail granted by the Hon'ble HC was cancelled considering legislative intent of curbing the practice of giving bail on technical grounds, and object of making stringent provisions for control of illicit traffic in drugs.
2024:KER:60316
BAIL APPL. NO. 5385 OF 2024
17
Sr. Judgment Bench Date of Holding
No. judgment
14. Babua v. State of Division Bench 30/01/2001 It is to be seen whether Orissa of the Hon'ble the accused would be (2001) 2 SCC 566 SC (Babu, found guilty if the Balakrishnan, allegations in the charge JJ.) are established. The Hon'ble Court held that it could not be said that the accused is not guilty, but also it could not be said that accused is guilty since evidence has not been completely adduced. The liberty of a citizen has to be balanced with the interest of the society, especially in cases where drugs are involved since the accused would indulge in activities that are lethal to society.
[In this case, the apparent
deadlock about the
accused's guilt and
innocence was broken by
applying the principle of
safeguarding the greater
good of the society.]
15.Supreme Court Division Bench 07/10/1994 To refuse bail on one
Legal Aid of Hon'ble SC hand and to delay trial on
Committee (Ahmadi, the other is clearly unfair
(Representing Hansaria, JJ.) and unreasonable and
Undertrial contrary to Articles 14, 19
Prisoners) v. Union and 21 of the
of India Constitution. The
1994 (6) SCC 731 following directions were
passed insofar as it
related to the State of
Maharashtra:
1. For persons
accused of
offences
prescribing
imprisonment of 5
2024:KER:60316
BAIL APPL. NO. 5385 OF 2024
18
Sr. Judgment Bench Date of Holding
No. judgment
years or less, if
the accused has
spent half the
punishment
provided in
custody, he shall
be released on
bail
2. For persons
accused or
offences
prescribing
imprisonment
exceeding 5 years
and fine, if the
accused has spent
half the
punishment
provided in
custody, he shall
be released on
bail provided that
the bail amount
shall not be less
than Rs. 50,000/-
with two sureties
for like amount
3. For persons
accused of
offences
prescribing
minimum
imprisonment of
10 years and
minimum fine of
Rs, 1,00,000/-, if
the accused has
spent five years in
custody, he shall
be released on
bail provided that
the bail amount is
Rs. 1,00,000/- with
two sureties for
2024:KER:60316
BAIL APPL. NO. 5385 OF 2024
19
Sr. Judgment Bench Date of Holding
No. judgment
like amount
4. For undertrial
accused who is
charged for
commission of an
offence under
sections 31 and
31A, he shall not
be released on
bail
General conditions for
undertrial accused entitled to bail in accordance with this order:
1. He shall deposit passport, and if not holding a passport shall file an affidavit to that effect
2. He shall present himself at the police station that prosecuted him on a monthly/fortnightly/week ly basis, unless leave of absence is obtained in advance
3. Bail and fine shall not be available to those who are likely to tamper with evidence or influence the prosecution witnesses
4. Foreigners shall have their passports impounded and the Special Judge shall insist on certificate of assurance from the Embassy / High Commission of that country stating the accused shall not leave the country and shall appear before the Court 2024:KER:60316 BAIL APPL. NO. 5385 OF 2024 20 Sr. Judgment Bench Date of Holding No. judgment whenever required
5. He shall not leave the area without permission of the Special Judge
6. The Special Judge is at liberty to cancel bail if any of the above conditions are violated Priority will be accorded to those undertrial prisoners who have not been released
16.Gurbux Bhiryani v. Single Bench 05/08/1991 Delay in completion of JK Handa, of Hon'ble trial cannot be a reason to 1991 SCC OnLine Delhi HC release the applicant Del 421 (Gupta, J.) accused on bail, especially when the delay could not be attributed to the prosecution.
17. Anil Kumar Gandhi Single Bench 27/05/1991 Delay in completion of v. NCB, of Hon'ble trial cannot be a reason to 1991 SCC OnLine Delhi HC release the applicant Del 344 (Bansal, J.) accused on bail without satisfying the conditions under S. 37.
18. Narcotics Control Division Bench 29/01/1991 In case of inconsistency Bureau v. Kishal of the Hon'ble between S. 439 CrPC and Lal, (1991) 1 SCC SC (Pandian, S. 37 NDPS Act, the latter 705 Reddy, JJ.) will prevail. The powers of High Courts to grant bail u/s. 439 CrPC are subject to limitations contained in the amended s. 37 of NDPS Act.
Thus divergent views to be noticeable. Then the law of precedents to be applied.
16. On evaluation of the verdicts herein above referred, it is noticed that judgments were rendered with divergent views. However, it is well 2024:KER:60316 BAIL APPL. NO. 5385 OF 2024 21 settled law precedents that when there is a larger Bench decision declaring a law , i.e the binding decision on the same point rendered taking a divergent view by the coordinate Bench or a lesser Bench could not be followed. It is true that in the decision reported in Fasil v. State of Kerala (supra) rendered on 13.04.2023, without considering the ratio of the 3 Bench decision in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal's case (supra), wherein the Apex Court categorically held that the length of period of custody or the fact that the charge sheet has been filed and trial has commenced are not considerations that can be treated as pursuasive grounds for granting relief to the accused by relaxing the rider under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, it is held that the ratio in Fasil v. State of Kerala (supra) is not a good law to be followed. Applying the same ratio, the petitioner herein, who was involved in an offence involving commercial quantity of contraband, cannot be released on bail diluting the rider under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
17. In the result, this Bail Application shall stand dismissed.
The Registry shall forward copy of this order to all the Sessions Courts and Special Courts, with direction that the directions in Fasil v. State of Kerala (supra)'s case shall not be followed and the ratio in 2024:KER:60316 BAIL APPL. NO. 5385 OF 2024 22 Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal's case (supra) shall be followed."
3. At the time of admission, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that FSL report in this case not so far obtained and therefore, trial could not be materialsed within a reasonable time. Accordingly, he pressed for grant of regular bail, in a case where commercial quantity of contraband is involved. Accordingly, a report from the Special Judge for NDPS Act cases, Thodupuzha was called for and as per report dated 07.08.2024 the learned Special Judge reported that Chemical Analysis Report from Chemical Examiner's Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram and Cyber Forensic Analysis Report from District Forensic Science Laboratory, Kottayam, have been received and one witness has already examined. He also submitted that five months' time more is required to complete the trial.
Since no change in circumstances established to grant regular bail to the petitioner who has been in custody, 2024:KER:60316 BAIL APPL. NO. 5385 OF 2024 23 in a case where commercial quantity of contraband is involved, this bail application stands dismissed with direction to the learned Special Judge to expedite the trial and complete the same within a period of five months as reported.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE nkr