Kerala High Court
Akshaya Labatia vs State Of Kerala on 21 May, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2025:KER:35883
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2025/31ST VAISAKHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO.6549 OF 2025
CRIME NO.662/2024 OF THADIYITTAPARAMBA POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.200 OF 2025
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - II, NORTH
PARAVUR / I ADDITIONAL MACT, NORTH PARAVUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2
AKSHAYA LABATIA,
AGED 20 YEARS,
S/O SUDARSHAN LABATIA BORIKHAL,
TELENGA PADAR PO, RAYAGADA,ODISHA, INDIA,
PIN - 765020
BY ADVS.
REJI R.
YESMA D. ELAVANTHARA
SHYMA K.P.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
SMT.SREEJA V,PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:35883
B.A No.6549 of 2025
2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
...............................................
B.A. No. 6549 of 2025
..............................................
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2025
ORDER
This is an application for regular bail filed under section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
2. Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.662/2024 of
Thadiyattaparamba Police Station, which is now pending as S.C
No.200/2025 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court -II, North Paravur,
alleging offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)C and 29 of Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985. (for short 'the NDPS' Act').
3. According to the prosecution, the accused was found to
be in possession of 70.120 kg of Ganja and thereby committed the offences
as alleged. Petitioner was arrested on 15.08.2024 and has been in custody
since then.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
complaint against the petitioner is totally false and there are no materials to
connect him with the alleged crime. The learned Counsel urged that having
regard to the long period of detention already undergone by the petitioner,
he ought to be released on bail. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the young age of the petitioner ought to be borne in mind by this Court
while considering the request of grant of bail.
2025:KER:35883
5. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand
contended that the quantity of contraband seized from the petitioner falls
within the category of commercial quantity and therefore the rigour of section
37 of the NDPS Act will apply and the petitioner ought not to be released on
bail.
6. On a consideration of the rival contentions and on a
perusal of the documents produced by the petitioner, it is noticed that the
petitioner was arrested on 15.08.2024 having been found to be in
possession of commercial quantity of 70.120 kg. When commercial quantity
of a contraband under the NDPS Act is seized from an accused, the
provisions of section 37 of the NDPS Act will be attracted while considering
the question of grant of bail. Though petitioner is stated to be only 20 years
old, the same cannot be reckoned as a reason for releasing him on bail,
considering the huge quantity of contraband seized.
7. As observed by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala
and Others v. Rajesh and Others [(2020) 12 SCC 122], the scheme of
section 37 requires that the power to grant bail under the NDPS Act is
subject to the limitation placed in the said provision over and apart from the
restrictions under the procedural law and the twin conditions stipulated
therein are required to be satisfied. Further, in the decision in Narcotics
Control Bureau V. Mohit Aggarwal [(2022) 18 SCC 374], it has been
observed that the focus must be on the availability of reasonable grounds to
2025:KER:35883
believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence alleged against and also
that he is unlikely to commit an offence under the Act. The Supreme Court
went on to observe that the length of the period of custody or that the charge
had been filed or even that the trial has commenced by themselves are not
considerations that can be treated as persuasive to grant bail under section
37 of the NDPS Act.
8. Viewed in the light of the above binding precedents, this
Court is of the view that the contention based on long period of detention
cannot be a reason for enlarging the petitioner on bail. Moreover, having
considered the contentions and materials available, this Court is satisfied
that, since the quantity of contraband, allegedly seized from the petitioner is
commercial, and bearing in mind the seriousness and gravity of the offences
alleged, there are no reasonable grounds, at this stage, to arrive at a
conclusion that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged. It is also
not possible to arrive at a conclusion that he is not likely to commit a similar
offence, if enlarged on bail. Thus, petitioner has not made out any grounds
to dilute the rigour of section 37 of the NDPS Act. There is thus, no merit in
this application.
Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
Cak
2025:KER:35883
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 6549/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ABOVE FIR 662/2024
OF THADIYATTAPARAMBA POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT DATED 15/8/2025
Annexure A2 THE PHOTO COPY OF THE CRL.M.P
NO.1235/2025 OF HON'BLE ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS COURT NORTH PARAVOOR DATED
3/05/2025
