Kerala High Court
Jithu Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 6 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:18971
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2926 OF 2025
CRIME NO.375/2022 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2024 IN BAIL APPL.
NO.6482 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.15 (IN CUSTODY FROM 04.06.2022):
JITHU THOMAS
AGED 31 YEARS, S/O THOMAS, KULATHUMAKAL HOUSE
PANNIYAMALA, KOTTIYOOR.P.O KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670 651.
BY ADVS.
P.MOHAMED SABAH
LIBIN STANLEY
SAIPOOJA
SADIK ISMAYIL
R.GAYATHRI
M.MAHIN HAMZA
ALWIN JOSEPH
BENSON AMBROSE
RESPONDENT/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR P.O,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 003.
2025:KER:18971
B.A No.2926 of 2025
2
BY ADV
G SUDHEER, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:18971
B.A No.2926 of 2025
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.2926 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is the 15th accused in Crime
No.375 of 2022 of Kannur Police Station. The above case
is registered against the petitioner and others alleging
offences punishable under Sections 21, 22(c) and 29 of
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(for short 'NDPS Act').
3. The prosecution case is that the police
seized 3.49 grams of LSD, 39 grams of tablets and 18.5
grams of brown sugar from a building where accused
Nos.1 to 3 were working. Specific allegation against the
petitioner is that he transferred an amount of
2025:KER:18971
Rs.11,29,650/- to the account of accused No.2.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel appearing for the petitioner
raised a short point. The counsel relied on the judgment
of the Apex Court in Ankur Chaudhary v. State of
Madhya Pradesh [2024 Live Law (SC) 416], Nitish
Adhikary @ Bapan v. The State of West Bengal [SLP
to Appeal (Crl.) No.5769 of 2022] and also
Hasanujjaman and others v. The State of West
Bengal [SLP to Appeal (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023] and
submitted that when there is incarceration for more than
one year and four months, the rigour under Section 37 of
the NDPS Act can be diluted. The counsel submitted that,
in this case the petitioner is in custody from 04.06.2022
and therefore the petitioner is entitled bail. The counsel
also submitted that this Court directed the Trial Court to
dispose the case within a time frame. Even now the trial
2025:KER:18971
is not over and it is at Section 313 of Criminal Procedure
Code (for short 'Cr.P.C) stage.
6. Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the
Bail Application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the
allegation against the petitioner is very serious and the
quantity of contraband seized is commercial quantity.
7. This Court considered the contentions of
the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. In Ankur
Chaudhary's case (Supra) the Apex Court observed like
this:-
"6. Now, on examination, the panch witnesses
have not supported the case of prosecution. On
facts, we are not inclined to consider the
Investigation Officer as a panch witness. It is to
observe that failure to conclude the trial within a
reasonable time resulting in prolonged
incarceration militates against the precious
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India, and as such, conditional
liberty overriding the statutory embargo created
under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may, in
such circumstances, be considered."
2025:KER:18971
8. In Hasanujjaman's case (supra), the
Apex Court considered a case in which the accused were
in custody for one year and four months. In that case
also the contraband seized is commercial quantity. Even
then the Apex Court granted bail.
9. In Nitish Adhikary's case (supra) case the
Apex Court observed like this:-
"During the course of the hearing, we are
informed that the petitioner has undergone
custody for a period of 01 year and 07 months as
on 09.06.2022. The trial is at a preliminary stage,
as only one witness has been examined. The
petitioner does not have any criminal
antecedents."
10. This Court in Shuaib A.S v. State of
Kerala [2025 SCC Online 618] this Court observed like
this:-
10. Anyhow, as of now, Crl.M.C.No.8400/2024
filed by the NCB seeking to examine certain
witnesses, was disposed on 06.01.2025 by
another learned Single Judge. As per the
order, even though the learned Single Judge
2025:KER:18971
found the reason for dismissal of the earlier
petition, viz., CrlM.P.No.4651/2024, without
assigning reasons for summoning the
additional witnesses was to be justified, one
more opportunity was given to the
prosecution to file a fresh 311 petition clearly
stating the reasons for examining the
additional witnesses in consideration of the
seriousness of the offences and this Court
also observed that the time limit for disposal
issued by this Court in the earlier bail
application of the accused need not deter the
court from exercising the power under
Section 311 of Cr.P.C. As of now, the Special
Court has to consider a fresh 311 petition to
be filed within one week from 06.01.2025 to
proceed further in this matter. It is worthwhile
to note that Section 37 of the NDPS Act is a
special provision which would deal with grant
of bail to the accused persons where
commercial quantity of contraband was
involved. But as per the decision cited by the
Apex Court, it was observed that, failure to
conclude the trial within a reasonable time
resulting in prolonged incarceration militates
against the precious fundamental right
guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and as such conditional
2025:KER:18971
liberty overriding the statutory embargo
created under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS
Act be considered. Going by the observation
of the Apex Court, in cases where prolonged
incarceration militates against the precious
fundamental right guaranteed under Article
21 of the Constitution of India, it overrides
Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act. In order to
hold that Article 21 of the Constitution of
India overrides Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS
Act, the delay in trial at the instance of the
prosecution is the `decisive factor'. That is to
say, the delay should be the sole contribution
of the prosecution and the accused has no
role in getting the matter prolonged, in any
manner. In cases, where dilatory tactics even
in remote possibility, negligible liability, bare
minimum or mere impossibility is the volition,
hand out or benefactum of the accused, it
could not be held in such cases that personal
liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India overrides Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS
Act. Thus in cases where commercial quantity
of contraband is involved and the accused
continues in custody for years, say for
example, for more than 3 years in the instant
case, where the laches on the part of the
prosecution alone is the reason in finalising
2025:KER:18971
the trial, continuous incarceration shall be
addressed so as to protect liberty of an
individual embodied under Article 21 of the
Constitution, which overrides the embargo
created under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS
Act. That is to say, in a case where trial could
not be completed due to the absolute laches
on the part of the prosecution, bail plea at the
instance of the accused on the said ground is
liable to be considered in suppression of the
rider under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act,
in tune with Article 21 of the Constitution of
India.
11. In the instant case, it is emphatically clear
that the prosecution failed to incorporate all
the necessary witnesses in the report and
after having examined all the witnesses
already cited, the prosecution filed a petition
under Section 311 of Cr.P.C to summon
additional witnesses, without showing the
purpose of their examination. The same was
dismissed by the trial court holding so, as the
prime ground. This Court also was not
inclined to interfere with the finding of the
Special Court, though in the said order, one
more opportunity was provided to the
prosecution to file a fresh petition under
Section 311 of Cr.P.C with reasons in
2025:KER:18971
consideration of the gravity of the offences
alleged to be committed. Thus it is evident
that the lethargy on the side of the
prosecution is the reason for non disposal of
the matter as directed by this Court within
the time frame and the petitioner in no way
has played anything which would stand in the
way of trial even on remote possibility or
mere impossibility. In such a case, in
consideration of the personal liberty of the
petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India which overrides the
effect of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, the
petitioner, who has been in custody from
29.01.2022 is liable to be released on bail.
(underline supplied)
11. Admittedly, in this case the quantity seized
is commercial quantity. The petitioner in this case is in
custody from 04.06.2022. In such circumstances, I am of
the considered opinion that the petitioner can file a fresh
bail application before the trial Court and there can be a
direction to consider that bail application in the light of
the principle laid down by the Apex Court and this Court
2025:KER:18971
in the above judgments.
Therefore, this bail application is disposed of with
the following directions:-
1. The petitioner is free to file a bail
application before the Jurisdictional Court
within two weeks raising all the
contentions raised in this bail application.
2. If such a bail application is received,
the Jurisdictional Court will consider the
same and pass appropriate orders in it, in
the light of the principle laid down by the
Apex Court in Ankur Chaudhary v.
State of Madhya Pradesh [2024 Live
Law (SC) 416], Nitish Adhikary @
Bapan v. The State of West Bengal
[SLP to Appeal (Crl.) No.5769 of 2022],
Hasanujjaman and others v. The
State of West Bengal [SLP to Appeal
2025:KER:18971
(Crl.) No.3221 of 2023] and also the
principle laid down by this Court in
Shuaib A.S v. State of Kerala [2025
SCC Online 618], within two weeks from
the date of receipt of the application.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
AMR
2025:KER:18971
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2926/2025
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
25.01.2023 IN B.A. NO. 239/ 2023
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
Annexure 5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
13.07.2023 IN B.A. NO. 2962/ 2023
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
Annexure 6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
11.08.2022 IN BA. NO. 3380/ 2022
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
Annexure 7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
20.07.2023 IN BA. NO. 4661/ 2023
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
Annexure 8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
18.04.2023 IN BA. NO. 5805/ 2022
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
Annexure 9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
21.10.2022 IN BA. NO. 6299/ 2022
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
Annexure 10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
09.05.2023 IN BA. NO. 9255/ 2022
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
Annexure 11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
13.03.2024 IN BA. NO. 1486/ 2024
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
Annexure 12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
22.12.2023 IN BA. NO. 10358/ 2023
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
Annexure 13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
2025:KER:18971
03.04.2024 IN BA. NO. 2009/ 2024
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
Annexure 14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
26.06.2024 IN BA. NO. 5086/ 2024
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
Annexure 15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
04.11.2024 IN BA. NO. 8496/ 2024
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
Annexure 16 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CRIME NO. 375 OF 2022 OF
KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR
DISTRICT
