[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Ebin P. Sunny vs State Of Kerala on 2 December, 2025
Author: K.Babu
Bench: K. Babu
2025:KER:93060
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 13168 OF 2025
CRIME NO.564/2025 OF Palarivattom Police Station, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 07.10.2025 IN CRMC NO.2768 OF
2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE
AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM
-----------------
PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.4 :-
EBIN P. SUNNY, AGED 22 YEARS
S/O.SUNNY, PALLIVELI HOUSE, NEAR A1 ANGANAVADI,
KARAKKA ROAD, AROOR P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA,
PIN - 688 534
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.V.ANILKUMAR
SMT.D.SARITHA
SHRI. JOHN MANJOORAN
SMT.KEERTHI PRIYA A.
SHRI.MANU MURALI T.
RESPONDENT/STATE :-
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031
BY SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA, SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.13168 of 2025
-: 2 :-
2025:KER:93060
K.BABU, J.
-------------------------------------------
B.A. No.13168 of 2025
----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2025
ORDER
This is an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
2. The petitioner is accused No.4 in Crime No.564/2025 of
Palarivattom Police Station, Ernakulam. The offences alleged against
the petitioner and the other accused are punishable under Sections
8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.
3. The prosecution case, as narrated in Annexure A2 order,
reads thus:-
"On 05.08.2025 at 08.50 p.m., the detecting officer, on getting a
secret information, searched a vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL-07-BG-
7308 in front of a workshop Kumbalappally Road,
Chalikkavattom, Kalariyath Kavala, Edappally South Village. As a
result 277.75 gm of MDMA was seized and arrested the 1 st
accused from the spot. On investigation, it is revealed that the
same was purchased by A1 and 3 from the 2 nd accused at
Bangalore. Therefore, the police arraigned A1 to 3. On
investigation, A4 was involved in this Crime." [sic]
4. The petitioner was arrested on 20.08.2025 and he has
been in judicial custody since then.
2025:KER:93060
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
investigation is over and therefore, the further detention of the
petitioner is not required. It is submitted that the petitioner has no
direct involvement in the allegations.
7. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application, contending that the rigour contained in Section 37 of the
NDPS Act is applicable. It is submitted that there are credible
materials to show that the petitioner received Rs.50,000/- from
accused No.1 as a consideration for assisting him. It is further
submitted that the petitioner abetted the commission of offence.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor produced the Case Diary,
which reveals that the grounds of arrest were communicated to the
petitioner. The Case Diary shows that the grounds of arrest were
also communicated to the father of the petitioner. Therefore, the
prosecution has established that the grounds of arrest were properly
communicated to the arrestee. The Case Diary further reveals that
the petitioner provided his SIM card to facilitate the 1 st accused in
procuring the contraband.
9. The petitioner is alleged to have committed offence
involving commercial quantity of contraband substance.
2025:KER:93060
10. As per Section 37 of the NDPS Act, if the Public
Prosecutor opposes the bail application, the court must satisfy that
there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not
guilty of such offence and only then can bail be granted. So, as far
as the petitioner is concerned, the twin conditions which really have
relevance are : (i) The satisfaction of the court that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the
alleged offence and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail. These conditions are cumulative and not alternative.
It is pertinent to note that the satisfaction contemplated in the
provision regarding the accused being not guilty has to be based on
reasonable grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for
believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence.
11. I have gone through the entire materials made available.
I feel that the limitations in granting bail as contained in Section 37
of the NDPS Act are applicable to the present situation and hence
the petitioner is not entitled to bail.
In the result, the Bail Application is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.BABU
JUDGE
Jvt/2.12.2025
2025:KER:93060
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 13168 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SLIP FOR
GENERAL CATEGORY STUDENTS, DATED 25/7/2025.
Annexure-A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DISMISSAL ORDER DATED
07/10/2025 IN CRL.M.C. NO.2768/2025 ON THE FILE
OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM.
