Suneesh vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 2332 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 2332 Ker
Judgement Date : 6 August, 2025

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

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

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

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.

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.