Kerala High Court
Naushad A M vs State Of Kerala on 28 July, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
B.A.No.8833 of 2025 1
2025:KER:55962
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 6TH SRAVANA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 8833 OF 2025
CRIME NO.10/2025 OF Perumbavoor Excise Range Office,
Ernakulam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
NAUSHAD A.M., AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. MUSTHAFA,
AALANGADAN VEETTIL, PALLIPPURAM KARA,
MARAMPILLY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,
PIN - 683105
BY ADV SHRI.ASHEEK ANTONY
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
SRI. NOUSHAD K. A. (PP)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.8833 of 2025 2
2025:KER:55962
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
B.A.No.8833 of 2025
...................................................
Dated this the 28th day of July, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner is the 1st accused in O.R. No.10 of 2025 of the Perumbavoor Excise Range Office, Ernakulam, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22(b)(ii)(C) and 60(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [for brevity, 'NDPS Act'].
3. According to the prosecution, on 29.01.2025, the accused was found in possession of 20.300 Kg. of ganja and thereby committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on 29.01.2025 and he has been in custody since then.
5. Heard Sri.Asheek Antony, the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that B.A.No.8833 of 2025 3 2025:KER:55962 the prosecution allegations are totally false and the petitioner is innocent and he is entitled to be released on bail. It was further submitted that the grounds for arrest have not been communicated to the petitioner or his relatives and hence the arrest itself is vitiated in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana [2025 SCC OnLine SC 269]. It was further contended that the quantity of contraband seized from the petitioner was only marginally in excess of the commercial quantity and hence relying upon the decision in Lakshman Patra v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC OnLine 1521], petitioner ought to be released on bail.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, opposed the bail application and contended that the grounds for arrest have been effectively communicated to the petitioner as well as to his relatives and, therefore, the said contention has no basis. It was also submitted that the quantity of contraband seized from the petitioner is not marginally in excess of the commercial quantity, but it was specifically in excess as 300 grams of ganja was found in excess of 20 Kg., which is the quantity prescribed for B.A.No.8833 of 2025 4 2025:KER:55962 commercial.
8. I have considered the rival contentions.
9. The copy of the arrest memo as well as the arrest intimation, which were handed over by the learned Public Prosecutor across the Bar, indicate that petitioner was informed of the grounds for arrest. The arrest memo states that petitioner was found in possession of 20.300 Kg. of ganja and the said memo contains the signature as well as the finger print of the petitioner. Further, in the arrest intimation also, it is specifically mentioned that petitioner was possessing 20.300 Kg. of ganja for sale and it was intimated to the petitioner's wife. Thus the grounds for arrest have been effectively communicated to the petitioner.
10. The contention of the petitioner that there was only a marginal excess of the commercial quantity, cannot be relied upon to release the petitioner. Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, when commercial quantity of contraband is seized, unless the Court is satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, on the Court grant bail. B.A.No.8833 of 2025 5
2025:KER:55962
11. In the decision in Narcotics Control Bureau V. Mohit Aggarwal [(2022) 18 SCC 374], it has been observed by the Supreme Court that the focus must be on the availability of reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence alleged against him and also that he is unlikely to commit an offence under the Act. The Supreme Court went on to observe that the length of the period of custody or that the charge had been filed or even that the trial has commenced by themselves are not considerations that can be treated as persuasive to grant bail under section 37 of the NDPS Act. The decision in Lakshman Patra [supra] do not lay down any proposition that if there is only a marginal excess, bail has to be granted.
12. In the instant case, since the quantity seized from the petitioner is in excess of the commercial quantity, petitioner cannot be released on bail.
Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE sp/28/07/2025 B.A.No.8833 of 2025 6 2025:KER:55962 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 8833/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER DATED 03.07.2025