Kerala High Court
Suneesh vs State Of Kerala on 6 August, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2025:KER:58963
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 8917 OF 2025
CRIME NO.2264/2024 OF Angamali Police Station, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 13.06.2025 IN Bail Appl.
NO.7406 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:
SUNEESH, AGED 23 YEARS,,
S/O DAS, PANICKANMAVUDI (H), MANNAMKALA,
ADIMALY VILLAGE, IDUKKI, PIN - 685 561.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.VIVEK
SHRI.M.R.MADHU
SMT.RENEETA VINU
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031
BY SMT. SREEJA V., PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.8917 of 2025 2
2025:KER:58963
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
B.A.No.8917 of 2025
...................................................
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.2264 of 2024 of Angamaly Police Station, Ernakulam, which is now pending as S.C.No.468 of 2025 before the Additional Sessions Court, North Paravur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 n b.
3. According to the prosecution, on 18.10.2024, the accused were found in possession of 328 grams of Methamphetamine and 8.4 grams of MDMA carried by them in a jeep bearing registration No.KL-67/D-6179 and thereby committed the offences alleged.
4. Heard Sri.M.Vivek, the learned Counsel for the B.A.No.8917 of 2025 3 2025:KER:58963 petitioner as well as Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution allegations are false and petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently objected to the grant of anticipatory bail and pointed out that in an offence under the NDPS Act, anticipatory bail ought not to be granted.
6. Petitioner was initially arrested on 18.10.2024 and after 271 days of custody, he was released on bail by order dated 15.07.2025 after finding that his arrest is vitiated due to failure in communicating the grounds for arrest. However, it was specifically mentioned in the said order that the Investigating Officer can arrest the petitioner after complying with the required procedure as contemplated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Pursuant to the said order, petitioner has been released, however, he apprehends an arrest again in the crime.
7. Though the petitioner's arrest was found to have been vitiated due to failure to communicate the grounds for arrest as B.A.No.8917 of 2025 4 2025:KER:58963 contemplated by law, he had been in custody from 18.10.2024. Since petitioner's arrest was found to be vitiated only after a long period of custody, I am of the view that his further arrest, though legally possible, is not conducive in the interests of justice, especially since the final report has already been filed and the case is now pending consideration before the Additional Sessions Court, North Paravur.
8. Though the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that in an offence under the NDPS Act, anticipatory bail ought not to be granted, I am of the view that there is nothing that restricts the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, even for an offence under the NDPS Act. In exceptional circumstances, an anticipatory bail can be granted. Since the petitioner has already undergone a long period of detention without any trial and since his arrest is found to have been vitiated, I am of the view that his further arrest may not be proper in the peculiar circumstances of the case.
9. In Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of B.A.No.8917 of 2025 5 2025:KER:58963 Delhi) and Another, [(2020) 5 SCC 1], it was held that, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case. Grant of anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of conditions to be imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on facts of each case, and subject to the discretion of the court.
10. In Ashok Kumar v. State of Union Territory of Chandigarh, [2024 SCC OnLine SC 274], it has been held that a mere assertion on the part of the State while opposing the plea for anticipatory bail that custodial interrogation is required would not be sufficient and that the State would have to show or indicate more than prima facie case as to why custodial interrogation of the accused is required for the purpose of investigation.
11. On a consideration of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that petitioner's apprehension of arrest being bonafide, he ought to be released on pre-arrest bail. B.A.No.8917 of 2025 6
2025:KER:58963 Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:
(a) In the event of the petitioner being arrested in Crime No.2264 of 2024 of Angamaly Police Station, Ernakulam, he shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum before the Investigating Officer.
(b) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation if he is so required in writing and shall co-operate with the investigation.
(c) Petitioner shall not destroy or tamper with the evidence.
(d) Petitioner shall not commit any other similar offences while he is on bail.
(e) Petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any modification or deletion of the conditions are required, the B.A.No.8917 of 2025 7 2025:KER:58963 jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider such applications, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE sp/07/08/2025 B.A.No.8917 of 2025 8 2025:KER:58963 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 8917/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 2264 OF 2024 OF ANGAMALY POLICE STATION DATED 01-04-2025 ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN B.A.NO: 7406 OF 2025 DATED 13-06-2025 ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.PNO: 2130 OF 2025 IN S.C.NO: 468 OF 2025 DATED 16- 07-2025