Kerala High Court
Visal vs State Of Kerala on 21 May, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2025:KER:35801
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.5482 OF 2025
CRIME NO.238/2022 OF VADANAPPALLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN BAIL APPL.
NO.3739 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED
VISAL,
AGED 35 YEARS,
S/O. MANOHARAN, THOTTUKKARA HOUSE, GURUTHIPPALA
DESOM, ANNALLOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680731
BY ADV SHABU SREEDHARAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
SRI. NOUSHAD K. A. (PP)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:35801
B.A No.5482 of 2025
2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
...............................................
B.A. No. 5482 of 2025
..............................................
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime No.238/2022 of
Vadanappally Police Station wihich is now pending consideration as S.C
No.1014 of 2022 on the files of the III Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur.
3. According to the Prosecution, accused 1 to 4 had
conspired to bring Hashish oil for sale in Kerala. On 03.04.2022, at 4.20
a.m accused 1 and 2 transported 7 kg of Hashish oil in a lorry to be
delivered to the 4th accused and thereby the accused committed the
offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)C and 29(1) of the Narcotics
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
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
2025:KER:35801
by the petitioner, he ought to be released on bail. The learned Counsel for
the petitioner submitted that accused 1 to 3 were already released on bail
and therefore the petitioner should also granted the same benefit.
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. It was also submitted that accused 1 to 3 were arrested
in 2022 and 2023, while the petitioner was arrested only on 06.08.2024
and also that petitioner is involved in 31 other crimes including two other
cases under the NDPS Act.
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 06.08.2024, having been found to be the
financier of the commercial quantity of 7 kg of hashish oil seized. 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, even in respect of the
alleged financier.
7. As observed by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala
and Others v. Rajesh and Others [(2020) 12 SCC 122], the scheme of
2025:KER:35801
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 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
2025:KER:35801
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:35801
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 5482/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED
27.1.2025
ANNEXURE-2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL MP NO.
788/2025 IN SC NO. 35/2025 OF THE 3RD
ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR DATED
6.2.2025
ANNEXURE-3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN BA NO.
3020/2025 DATED 7.3.2025
ANNEXURE-4 HE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN BA NO.
3493/2025 DATED 13.3.2025
ANNEXURE-5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN BA NO.
3739/2025 DATED 20.3.2025
ANNEXURE-6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL MP NO.
1817/2025 DATED 9.4.2025 OF THE 3RD
ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR
