Kerala High Court
Athul vs State Of Kerala on 20 May, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2025:KER:34316
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2025/30TH VAISAKHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO.6152 OF 2025
CRIME NO.466/2025 OF NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMC NO.1007 OF
2025 OF SPECIAL C SPE/CBI- II & 4 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,
ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2
ATHUL,
AGED 27 YEARS,
S/O. MANOHARAN, NIKATHIL HOUSE, KUTTANTHURUTH,
KOTTUVALLY, KAITHARAM P.O.,
PIN - 683515
BY ADV PAUL VARGHESE SRAMBICAL
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682031
SRI. NOUSHAD K. A. (PP)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:34316
B.A.No.6152 of 2025
2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
...............................................
B.A. No. 6152 of 2025
..............................................
Dated this the 20th day of May, 2025
ORDER
The petitioner is the 2 nd accused in Crime No.466 of 2025 of
the North Paravur Police Station alleging offences punishable under
Sections 22 (b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act).
2. According to the Prosecution, on 17.03.2025 the 1st accused
was found to be 2.71 grams of M.D.M.A apart from the petitioner being
the 2nd accused also found to be in possession of 2.71 grams of
M.D.M.A and it was seized and the accused were arrested on
17.03.2025.
3. Sri. Paul Varghese, the learned Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that, going by the prosecution case, contraband could have
been seized only from the 1st accused and not from the petitioner, since
the total quantity seized was only 2.71 grms. He pointed out that there is
a mistake in the prosecution case since there has not been any recovery
from the petitioner. It was also submitted that more than 60 days have
elapsed since he was taken into custody and therefore he is entitled to
be released on statutory bail since the investigation has not yet been
2025:KER:34316
completed. The decision in Mohammed Sajjid v. State of Kerala [2025
(2) KHC 260] was relied upon to justify the aforesaid proposition.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted
that though in Mohammed Sajjid v. State of Kerala [2025 (2) KHC
260] this Court had observed that statutory bail will accrue for offences
under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act if the accused had been in custody
for more than 60 days without the investigation being completed, the
said proposition requires reconsideration as the wording in Section 187
BNSS 2023 and Section 167 of Cr.PC are different. It was further
submitted that the investigation is still continuing and the final report has
not yet been filed and that the petitioner is involved in a serious offence
and hence bail ought not be granted.
5. On a consideration of the rival contentions, this Court
notices that the learned Single Judge in Mohammed Sajjid's case
(supra) had compared the phraseology used in Section 187(3)(i) of
BNSS as well as the phraseology used in Section 167(2)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C
and came to the conclusion that, even for offences punishable up to 10
years, the concept of statutory bail will be available on completion of 60
days, if the final report has not been filed. In coming to the above
conclusion, the observations of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar
Paul v. State of Assam [(2017) 15 SCC 67] was relied upon apart from
the decision of the Karnataka High Court in State of Karnataka by
2025:KER:34316
Kavoor Police Station v. Kalanthar Shafy [2024 KHC Online 5417].
6. Though initially this Court entertained a doubt about the
correctness of the above proposition, on a perusal of the dictum laid down
by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar's case (supra), this Court is of the
considered view that the proposition in Mohammed Sajjid (supra) does not
require any reconsideration. The words 'imprisonment for a term of 10 years
or more' in Section 187(3)(i) of BNSS, do indicate that there must be a
minimum sentence of imprisonment of 10 years and not a period of
imprisonment upto 10 years. Since I am in consonance with the decision in
Mohammed Sajid's case (supra), the petitioner is entitled to be released on
statutory bail as sixty days have elapsed since his arrest and the final report
has not yet been filed.
7. Accordingly the petitioner shall be released on bail on the
following conditions:
(a) Petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to
the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.
(b) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and
when required and shall co-operate with the investigation and trial of
the case.
(c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the
witnesses; nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence.
(d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on
bail.
(e) Petitioner shall not leave the Country without the permission
2025:KER:34316
of the jurisdictional Court.
(f) If, in case, the above conditions are violated, the
jurisdictional court will be at liberty to cancel the bail in accordance with
law, notwithstanding this bail having been granted by this Court.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
Cak
2025:KER:34316
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 6152/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE -I A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.4.2025
IN CRL.M.C. NO.1007/2025 OF SESSIONS
COURT ERANAKULAM .
